AMD Radeon R7 M265 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct benchmark comparison for these two mobile graphics parts: the Geekbench OpenCL compute test. In that test, the AMD Radeon R7 M265 scores 4,929 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4,241 points. This gives the AMD part a 16.2% lead, and it is the only head-to-head win recorded for either GPU.

The R7 M265's score places it in the 29th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are clustered extremely close: the AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 4,931 (a 0% delta), the AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4,904 (0.5% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB scores 4,901 (0.6% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4,893 (0.7% behind). The practical takeaway is that the R7 M265 sits at the top of a tight performance band, but the gap to its closest competitor is essentially a rounding error.

The Quadro K3000M, by contrast, sits in the 25th percentile. Its nearest rivals show a slightly wider spread. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 4,268 (0.6% ahead of the Quadro), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4,282 (1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti scores 4,193 (1.2% behind), and the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4,295 (1.3% ahead). The K3000M's position in this group is less favorable: it trails three of its four nearest rivals, and its single win over the GTX 1050 Ti is by a modest 1.2%.

The head-to-head delta of 16.2% is the dominant story. That is not a marginal edge; it is a substantial compute performance gap. The R7 M265 wins the only recorded comparison, and it does so by a wide margin relative to the typical deltas seen among the nearest rival groups, which are mostly in the sub-2% range. In the context of the database, this is a clear, decisive victory for the AMD part in raw OpenCL throughput.

For a builder comparing these two used or end-of-life mobile GPUs, the benchmark data alone points firmly in one direction. The R7 M265 delivers a higher absolute score, a better percentile ranking, and a 16.2% advantage in the direct comparison. The Quadro K3000M does not win any recorded benchmark, and its nearest-rival analysis shows it struggling to keep pace even with integrated-class parts like the Vega 3.

The Verdict

If the decision rests entirely on the recorded Geekbench OpenCL score, the AMD Radeon R7 M265 is the clear choice. It beats the Quadro K3000M by 16.2% in the direct comparison, and its overall score of 4,929 is higher than anything the Quadro's nearest rival group can muster. The Quadro's 4,241 score is not just lower, it is in a different performance tier, as reflected by its 25th percentile versus the R7 M265's 29th percentile.

The R7 M265 is the pick for anyone whose workload is dominated by OpenCL compute, which is what the database measures here. That includes tasks like GPU-accelerated rendering, video encoding, physics simulation, or any general-purpose compute workload that can leverage the GPU. The 16.2% lead means that for a given task, the AMD part should complete work noticeably faster, all else being equal.

The Quadro K3000M does have one advantage in the data: its 75 W TDP is explicitly recorded, while the R7 M265 has no TDP listed. For a system builder concerned about power draw and thermals in a laptop or MXM module configuration, the Quadro's known power envelope is a concrete specification. However, there is no benchmark data in the database that translates that power difference into a performance-per-watt comparison, so it cannot be quantified here.

The production status tells its own story. Both are end-of-life parts. The R7 M265 was released on 2014-01-08, the Quadro K3000M on 2012-05-31. Neither is a current product, but the AMD part is nearly two years newer in release date, which aligns with its architecture generation being listed as "Gem System (R7 M200)" versus the Quadro's "Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M)".

For practical purposes: choose the R7 M265 for better measured compute performance. Choose the Quadro K3000M only if you specifically need the known 75 W power envelope, a 256-bit memory bus, or the certified mobile workstation feature set implied by the Quadro branding, none of which the benchmark captures. The data does not show a single metric where the Quadro wins.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M265 scores 4,929, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4,241. The AMD part is ahead by 16.2% in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How does the R7 M265 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The R7 M265's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M360 at 4,931, which is essentially tied (0% delta). It also edges out the AMD FirePro W5130M (4,904, 0.5% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4,901, 0.6% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4,893, 0.7% behind).

Q: How does the Quadro K3000M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K3000M trails most of its nearest group. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 4,268 (0.6% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4,282 (1% ahead), and the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4,295 (1.3% ahead). Its only win is against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, which scores 4,193, a 1.2% deficit.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The R7 M265 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K3000M also has 2 GB, but uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s, which is over three times the memory bandwidth.

Q: What are the recorded power specifications?

A: The Quadro K3000M has a TDP of 75 W, uses no power connectors, and is an MXM Module. The R7 M265 has no TDP, slot width, or power connector data recorded in the database.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life. The R7 M265 was released on 2014-01-08 and the Quadro K3000M on 2012-05-31.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measured specification category. The most striking difference is memory bandwidth: the Quadro K3000M offers 89.60 GB/s, while the R7 M265 offers only 28.80 GB/s. This is a 3.1x advantage for the NVIDIA part. The Quadro also has a wider 256-bit bus versus the R7 M265's 128-bit bus, and uses GDDR5 memory instead of DDR3.

Compute resource counts favor the Quadro as well. The Quadro has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The R7 M265 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the Quadro has 50% more shading units, double the TMUs, and four times the ROPs.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The R7 M265 runs at 725 MHz base and 825 MHz boost, while the Quadro K3000M runs at 654 MHz base and 654 MHz boost, meaning no boost at all. The AMD part clocks higher, but the Quadro's larger resource pool compensates in raw throughput. The recorded pixel rate is 6.600 GPixel/s for the R7 M265 versus 7.848 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and the texture rate is 19.80 GTexel/s versus 31.39 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 633.6 GFLOPS for the AMD part versus 753.4 GFLOPS for the NVIDIA part.

The memory clock rates differ in effective terms: 1800 Mbps effective for the R7 M265 versus 2.8 Gbps effective for the Quadro. The bus interfaces are different: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the AMD part, MXM-B (3.0) for the NVIDIA part. The Quadro is explicitly a 75 W MXM Module with no power connectors, while the R7 M265 has no power data recorded. Display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for the Quadro, while the R7 M265 has no display output data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The R7 M265 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, built on the "Opal" chip, and belongs to the "Gem System (R7 M200)" generation. The Quadro K3000M uses NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, built on the GK104 chip, and belongs to the "Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M)" generation.

Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge sharply. The Quadro's GK104 packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The R7 M265's Opal chip contains only 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 12.3M per mm². The density is nearly identical, but the Quadro has 3.7x more transistors and a 3.8x larger die. This explains the Quadro's larger resource pool despite its lower clocks.

The R7 M265's GCN 1.0 architecture is older in design lineage, but the chip itself is smaller and simpler. It supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The DirectX versions differ: the AMD part supports the 11_1 feature level, while the NVIDIA part supports only 11_0. Neither has any ray tracing or tensor cores recorded.

The cache hierarchies are not listed for either part, so no comparison can be made there. The R7 M265's predecessor is "Solar System" and its successor is "Polaris Mobile", while the Quadro's predecessor is "Quadro Fermi-M" and its successor is "Quadro Maxwell-M". This places both at a specific point in their respective product evolution, with the AMD part having a more recent release date of 2014-01-08 versus 2012-05-31 for the NVIDIA part.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M265 wins in the only measured benchmark: Geekbench OpenCL, where it leads by 16.2%. This means for any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, the AMD part is the stronger performer. The database shows exactly one test, and the AMD GPU wins it. The R7 M265 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 29% versus the Quadro's 25%, indicating better relative standing across the entire GPU landscape.

The Quadro K3000M wins in specifications that are not directly benchmarked but are still relevant. Its 89.60 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than triple the R7 M265's 28.80 GB/s, which could matter for memory-bound workloads that the OpenCL test does not capture. Its 256-bit bus and GDDR5 memory are significantly more robust. The Quadro also has more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, and higher theoretical pixel, texture, and FP32 rates. Its 75 W TDP is documented, which is useful for system integration decisions.

For use-case planning: choose the R7 M265 if your primary concern is measured OpenCL compute performance. The 16.2% lead is real and decisive. Choose the Quadro K3000M if your workload is known to be memory-bandwidth sensitive, if you need a GPU with a documented 75 W power envelope, or if the Quadro's professional mobile workstation positioning (as implied by its generation and form factor) is a requirement. The data does not support choosing the Quadro for raw compute speed, but it does offer clear advantages in memory subsystem specifications and power predictability.