AMD Radeon R7 M265 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and AMD Radeon R7 M265 represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics from the same era, and the benchmark data reflects a clear, though not overwhelming, advantage for the Quadro. The K3100M, built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, is a professional-grade mobile workstation part, while the R7 M265 is a mainstream consumer GPU from AMD’s GCN 1.0 generation. Their head-to-head results, architectural choices, and specification sheets tell a story of divergent priorities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6,154 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 M265 scores 4,929 points. This translates to a 24.9% advantage for the Quadro, a substantial margin that places it firmly ahead in general-purpose compute workloads. In practical terms, this means the K3100M delivers nearly a quarter more OpenCL performance, which is significant for any application leveraging GPU acceleration.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Quadro’s average benchmark score across all tested workloads is 5,154, while the R7 M265’s average is 4,929. Interestingly, the Quadro’s average is pulled down by its other results — its Geekbench Metal score is 3,823 and its Vulkan score is 5,484 — which are both lower than its OpenCL result. The R7 M265 only has a single OpenCL benchmark on record, so its average is identical to that score.

The percentile rankings are close: the Quadro sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon sits at the 29th percentile. This suggests that despite the 24.9% head-to-head delta, both cards occupy a similar tier in the overall GPU landscape — neither is a standout performer, but both are capable of handling modest workloads. The Quadro’s advantage in OpenCL is real, but it does not catapult it into a higher performance class.

When examining the nearest rivals for each card, the picture becomes more nuanced. The Quadro K3100M’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M260X, which scores 5,161 — just 0.1% higher than the Quadro’s average. The Quadro also sits within 1.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5,236) and 1.1% of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5,211). In contrast, the R7 M265’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M360, which scores 4,931, a negligible 0% delta. The Radeon also trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4,901) by 0.6% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4,893) by 0.7%. Notably, the Radeon R7 M265 is actually slightly ahead of its nearest rivals, whereas the Quadro is slightly behind its closest competitors, a subtle but telling reversal.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test with a 24.9% margin. This makes it the clear choice for compute-focused tasks such as OpenCL-accelerated rendering, scientific simulations, or any workload that offloads parallel processing to the GPU. Its higher raw compute throughput — the data shows 1,084.4 GFLOPS FP32 versus 633.6 GFLOPS for the Radeon — supports this interpretation, even though that specific figure is not part of the head-to-head comparison.

The AMD Radeon R7 M265, by contrast, does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head data. However, its performance profile is not without merit. The Radeon’s nearest rival comparisons show it holding its own within its own performance tier, with a 0% delta against the R7 M360 and a 0.5% edge over the FirePro W5130M. This suggests that while it loses to the Quadro, it is competitive with other cards in its class. For users whose workloads are not heavily OpenCL-dependent, the Radeon may still be sufficient, particularly if the application relies on other API paths — though the data only records OpenCL for this card.

In terms of use cases, the Quadro’s win in OpenCL points toward professional applications like CAD, medical imaging, or financial modeling that leverage compute shaders. The Radeon, lacking a benchmark win, is harder to recommend for any specific workload based on the data alone. Its single benchmark result suggests it is a general-purpose mobile GPU, but without additional test scores, its strengths remain undefined in this dataset.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip, based on the Kepler architecture, and belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with a substantial 3,540 million transistors packed into a 294 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per mm². The chip is configured with 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units.

The AMD Radeon R7 M265, on the other hand, uses the Opal chip, based on GCN 1.0 architecture, and belongs to the Gem System (R7 M200) generation. It is also built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but with far fewer resources: 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a slightly higher transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The GPU features 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs.

The transistor budget difference is enormous — the Quadro has more than 3.7 times the transistor count of the Radeon — and this directly translates into the compute and fillrate advantages seen in the benchmarks. The Quadro’s pixel rate is 11.30 GPixel/s versus 6.60 GPixel/s for the Radeon, and its texture rate is 45.18 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s. These are not marginal differences; they represent a fundamental gap in processing capacity. The Quadro’s FP32 throughput of 1,084.4 GFLOPS is roughly 71% higher than the Radeon’s 633.6 GFLOPS, which aligns with the 24.9% OpenCL delta observed in the head-to-head test.

Both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro lists a Vulkan version of 1.2.175 while the Radeon lists 1.2.170 — a minor revision difference. The Quadro also has a lower DirectX feature level (11_0) compared to the Radeon’s 11_1, suggesting the Radeon has a slight edge in certain DirectX 12 feature support. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, making them both traditional rasterization-and-compute designs.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences beyond the architecture. The most obvious is memory: the Quadro K3100M comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R7 M265 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a much lower 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. This is a 3.5x difference in memory bandwidth, which heavily favors the Quadro in memory-intensive workloads.

Clock speeds also differ. The Quadro runs at a fixed 706 MHz for both base and boost, with memory at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The Radeon has a base clock of 725 MHz and a boost clock of 825 MHz, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Radeon’s higher core clocks do not compensate for its lower shader count and memory bandwidth, as the benchmark results confirm.

The bus interface differs as well: the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0), a modular mobile form factor, while the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The Quadro is specified as an MXM Module with no power connectors, and its TDP is listed at 75 W. The Radeon has no TDP, slot width, or power connector data in the pack. The Quadro’s display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," while the Radeon has no display output information listed.

Release dates and production status also differ. The Quadro was released on July 22, 2013, while the Radeon came later on January 8, 2014. Both are end-of-life products, with the Quadro succeeding the Quadro Fermi-M and preceding the Quadro Maxwell-M, while the Radeon succeeds the Solar System and precedes Polaris Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has an average benchmark score of 5,154, while the AMD Radeon R7 M265 scores 4,929. The Quadro also holds a 24.9% advantage in the Geekbench OpenCL head-to-head test.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The Quadro K3100M features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R7 M265 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The Radeon R7 M265 has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, while the Radeon R7 M265 has 384 shading units. The Quadro also has 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs, compared to 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs for the Radeon.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The Quadro K3100M delivers 1,084.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Radeon R7 M265 delivers 633.6 GFLOPS. This represents a 71% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: How do the DirectX versions compare?

A: The Quadro K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0 feature level), while the Radeon R7 M265 supports DirectX 12 (11_1 feature level). Both support OpenGL 4.6, with Vulkan 1.2.175 for the Quadro and 1.2.170 for the Radeon.