AMD Radeon R7 M265 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M265 and NVIDIA Quadro M3000M represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics, separated by a generation and aimed at different segments. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, with the Quadro M3000M dominating in the single available head-to-head test, yet the R7 M265 holds its own in a peculiar way within the aggregated standings. This analysis breaks down the raw numbers, architectural differences, and practical implications for someone choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is not close. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 16646, while the AMD Radeon R7 M265 scores 4929. This translates to a delta of -70.4% for the R7 M265, meaning the Quadro M3000M is approximately 3.4 times faster in this compute-oriented workload. This is a landslide victory for NVIDIA, reflecting the massive disparity in raw compute resources between the two chips.

Digging into the broader benchmark suite for the Quadro M3000M, the data reveals a mixed profile. In Passmark tests, the M3000M achieves a G3D score of 5543, a G2D score of 402, and a GPU Compute score of 2139. These are respectable numbers for a mobile workstation part. However, the DirectX-specific scores are surprisingly low: 98 in DirectX 9, 42 in DirectX 11, 26 in DirectX 10, and 23 in DirectX 12. This indicates that while the card has strong computational throughput and OpenCL performance, its legacy DirectX performance is not a strength, possibly due to driver maturity or the specific nature of the test workload.

The R7 M265 has only one benchmark recorded, the Geekbench OpenCL score of 4929. Interestingly, this places it in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the much faster Quadro M3000M sits in the 27th percentile. This is a counterintuitive result. The average benchmark score for the R7 M265 is 4929, while the Quadro M3000M's average is 4621. This means that despite the M3000M's crushing victory in the single head-to-head test, its average score across all its benchmark results is actually lower than the R7 M265's single score. This suggests that the M3000M's low DirectX scores drag down its average, making the two cards appear closer in overall standings than they are in compute performance.

When looking at the nearest rivals for each card, the picture becomes even more nuanced. The R7 M265's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M360, with a delta of 0%. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB is only 0.6% behind, and the GeForce GTS 450 is 0.7% behind. This indicates that the R7 M265 is a very average performer, sitting right in the middle of a cluster of low-to-mid-range GPUs from various eras. The Quadro M3000M, on the other hand, is closely matched with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (delta -0.1%), but also with the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and RX 9060 XT 16 GB (both at -0.8%). This suggests that in terms of its average score, the M3000M is being pulled down to the level of much weaker cards, purely due to the weighting of its benchmark results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute-heavy workloads like OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is overwhelmingly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 16646 compared to the R7 M265's 4929, a difference of -70.4% in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: Why is the R7 M265's percentile ranking higher than the Quadro M3000M's?

A: The R7 M265 sits in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M3000M is in the 27th percentile. This is because the M3000M's average benchmark score of 4621 is lower than the R7 M265's 4929, likely due to the M3000M's very low scores in Passmark DirectX tests (ranging from 23 to 98), which drag down its overall average.

Q: How does the Quadro M3000M compare to a known gaming GPU like the GTX 970M?

A: The data shows they are extremely close in average score. The Quadro M3000M's average is 4621, while its nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 970M, has an average score of 4628, a delta of -0.1%. This puts them statistically in the same performance tier based on the aggregate data.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M265 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The M3000M's memory subsystem is vastly superior.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both the AMD Radeon R7 M265 and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M are marked as "End-of-life" in the production status data.

Q: Which GPU has better DirectX 12 support?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD Radeon R7 M265 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The M3000M has a higher feature level, although its actual Passmark DirectX 12 score is a low 23.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, though somewhat contradictory, verdict. For any task that leverages raw compute or memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the only choice. Its 16646 OpenCL score is more than three times the R7 M265's 4929, and its 160.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth dwarfs the R7 M265's 28.80 GB/s. The M3000M's architecture is simply in a different league.

However, the aggregate benchmark data tells a cautionary tale. The Quadro M3000M's low DirectX scores (e.g., 23 in DirectX 12) suggest that its legacy driver performance is poor, which is why its average score and percentile ranking are lower than the R7 M265's. If the workload is purely legacy DirectX gaming, the data suggests the R7 M265 might actually provide a more consistent experience, as its single recorded score is higher than the M3000M's average.

In short, the Quadro M3000M is the superior hardware for professional compute and modern workloads, but the R7 M265 appears to be the safer bet for older, DirectX-based applications based on the available data. The M3000M's performance is a peak that comes with valleys, while the R7 M265 is a flat, unremarkable performer.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The AMD Radeon R7 M265 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This represents a massive difference in execution resources, explaining the compute performance gap.

Clock speeds also favor the NVIDIA part. The R7 M265 has a base clock of 725 MHz and a boost clock of 825 MHz, while the Quadro M3000M runs at a base of 823 MHz and boosts to 924 MHz. The memory systems are vastly different, as previously noted. The R7 M265 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, while the M3000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Pixel and texture rates follow suit: the R7 M265 delivers 6.600 GPixel/s and 19.80 GTexel/s, while the M3000M delivers 29.57 GPixel/s and 59.14 GTexel/s. FP32 compute performance is 633.6 GFLOPS for the R7 M265 and 1.892 TFLOPS for the M3000M. Even the bus interface differs, with the R7 M265 using PCIe 3.0 x8 and the M3000M using PCIe 3.0 x16.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational. The AMD Radeon R7 M265 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Opal chip, and belongs to the Gem System (R7 M200) generation. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, part of the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the chips are vastly different in size and complexity. The R7 M265's Opal chip has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3M / mm². The M3000M's GM204 is a much larger chip with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, achieving a density of 13.1M / mm².

The memory technology is a key architectural difference. The R7 M265 uses DDR3, while the M3000M uses GDDR5, which is fundamentally higher bandwidth. API support also differs: the R7 M265 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Finally, the power and form factor differ, with the M3000M having a 75 W TDP and an MXM Module slot width, while the R7 M265 lists no TDP or slot width. The M3000M also lists its display outputs as "Portable Device Dependent," while the R7 M265 has no listing.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins decisively in compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 16646 is the headline victory. It also wins on memory bandwidth, with 160.4 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s, which is critical for large datasets and texturing. Its higher pixel rate (29.57 GPixel/s) and texture rate (59.14 GTexel/s) mean it can handle higher resolutions and more complex scenes. For any modern workload, professional application, or compute task, the M3000M is the clear winner.

The AMD Radeon R7 M265's wins are more subtle and based on the aggregate data. Its average benchmark score of 4929 is higher than the Quadro M3000M's 4621, and its percentile ranking (29th) is higher than the M3000M's (27th). This suggests that in the specific, likely legacy DirectX tests where the M3000M scores very low (e.g., 98 in DirectX 9, 26 in DirectX 10), the R7 M265 might perform more consistently. The R7 M265 also has a lower TDP (not listed for it, but the M3000M is listed at 75 W), which could imply lower power draw, though without a TDP figure for the R7 M265, this remains speculative. The R7 M265's win is essentially in the "average experience" category, not in peak performance.