AMD Radeon R7 M340 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unequivocal: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M dominates this comparison. Across both recorded head-to-head tests, the Quadro M3000M wins decisively, posting scores roughly three times higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M340. The R7 M340 trails by 70.4% in Geekbench OpenCL and 68.8% in Geekbench Vulkan. These are not marginal differences; they represent entirely different performance tiers.

The Radeon R7 M340 is a low-end mobile part. Its average benchmark score of 5063 places it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with its closest rival being the AMD Radeon R7 240 at an identical 5063 average score. The R7 M340 sits in a cluster of entry-level chips, all within 1.3% of each other. This is a GPU for basic display output, light media consumption, and undemanding legacy workloads.

The Quadro M3000M, despite its higher raw benchmark scores, actually lands in the 27th percentile of all GPUs. This is an interesting quirk of the database: its average score of 4621 is dragged down by low Passmark legacy DirectX results (26 in DirectX 10, 42 in DirectX 11, 23 in DirectX 12, 98 in DirectX 9). Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, which scores 4628, a 0.1% difference. The Passmark G3D score of 5543 and GPU Compute score of 2139 tell a more complete story of a mid-range professional mobile GPU.

Who should pick which? The data points to a clear split. The R7 M340 is for systems where the GPU is an afterthought, where the priority is low power consumption and basic functionality. Its 2 GB DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for 2D workloads and light 3D acceleration. The Quadro M3000M is for professionals who need real compute capability: its 4 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and its 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is nearly three times the R7 M340's 653.4 GFLOPS. If the workload involves CUDA-accelerated applications, rendering, or professional CAD, the Quadro M3000M is the only sensible choice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M. Its FP32 performance is 1.892 TFLOPS versus 653.4 GFLOPS for the AMD Radeon R7 M340. The Quadro also has 1024 shading units versus 320, 64 texture mapping units versus 20, and 32 ROPs versus 8.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The Quadro M3000M has a substantial advantage. It uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M340 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 16.00 GB/s. That is a tenfold difference in bandwidth.

Q: Are both GPUs from the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. The transistors differ in count: the R7 M340 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while the Quadro M3000M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die.

Q: What is the power draw of each GPU?

A: The database only records a TDP for the Quadro M3000M: 75 W. The R7 M340 has no TDP listed. The Quadro also specifies an MXM Module slot width and no power connectors, indicating it is designed for modular mobile workstations.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The Quadro M3000M is ahead on DirectX (12_1 versus 12_0) and Vulkan (1.4 versus 1.2.170). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The R7 M340 lacks a recorded FP16 rating, while the Quadro has no FP16 data at all.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The R7 M340 has a higher average benchmark score of 5063 versus 4621 for the Quadro M3000M. However, this is misleading because the Quadro's average is reduced by its very low Passmark legacy DirectX scores. In modern compute benchmarks, the Quadro is far ahead.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R7 M340 is built on the GCN 3.0 architecture, using the Meso chip. It is part of the Gem System generation, specifically the R7 M300 line. GCN 3.0 was designed for efficiency in a compact package. The chip contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. This is a small, power-conscious design intended for thin and light laptops.

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture on the GM204 chip. This is a far larger design: 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The transistor density is 13.1 million per square millimeter, slightly higher than AMD's. Maxwell 2.0 was NVIDIA's high-performance architecture for its generation, and the GM204 chip was also used in desktop GPUs. The Quadro M3000M belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M generation, the Mx000M series, which is NVIDIA's professional mobile workstation lineup.

The architectural differences manifest in the compute resources. The R7 M340 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro M3000M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This is a 3.2x advantage in shading units, a 3.2x advantage in TMUs, and a 4x advantage in ROPs. The pixel rate tells the same story: 8.168 GPixel/s for the R7 M340 versus 29.57 GPixel/s for the Quadro. Texture rate is 20.42 GTexel/s versus 59.14 GTexel/s.

Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both rely on traditional rasterization and compute pipelines. The R7 M340 offers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 653.4 GFLOPS. The Quadro M3000M has no recorded FP16 capability, focusing its resources on FP32 throughput. This makes the AMD part theoretically more flexible for emerging FP16 workloads, though its absolute performance is far lower.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show a clear hierarchy. The R7 M340 runs at a base clock of 943 MHz with a boost of 1021 MHz. The Quadro M3000M runs at a lower base clock of 823 MHz and a boost of 924 MHz. Despite lower clocks, the Quadro's much larger execution resources deliver dramatically higher throughput. The memory clock tells a similar story: the R7 M340 runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the Quadro runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is one of the largest separators. The R7 M340 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The Quadro M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The resulting bandwidth difference is massive: 16.00 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s. For any workload that moves large datasets, such as texture streaming or compute kernels, this is the defining specification.

The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R7 M340 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro M3000M. This doubles the available host interface bandwidth for the NVIDIA part. The Quadro is specified as an MXM Module with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP, indicating a modular laptop design. The R7 M340 has no listed TDP, slot width, or power connector information, suggesting it is a more integrated solution.

API support favors the Quadro: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus DirectX 12 (12_0), and Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The production status for both is end-of-life. The R7 M340 was released on May 4, 2015, and the Quadro M3000M on August 17, 2015. The R7 M340's predecessor is listed as Solar System and its successor as Polaris Mobile. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is Quadro Pascal-M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmarks, and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 16646 against 4932 for the R7 M340. That is a delta of -70.4% for the AMD part, meaning the R7 M340 delivers less than a third of the Quadro's OpenCL performance. This is the more relevant benchmark for compute workloads, and the result is decisive.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap is slightly narrower but still enormous: 16668 for the Quadro versus 5193 for the R7 M340. The delta is -68.8%. Vulkan is the modern graphics API, and this result shows the Quadro's advantage in contemporary gaming and rendering workloads. The R7 M340's Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score (5193 versus 4932), while the Quadro's scores are nearly identical across the two APIs (16668 versus 16646).

The Passmark results, recorded only for the Quadro, provide additional context. Its DirectX 9 score of 98 is its best legacy DirectX result, followed by 42 in DirectX 11, 26 in DirectX 10, and 23 in DirectX 12. The Passmark G3D score is 5543, and the GPU Compute score is 2139. The G2D score of 402 indicates solid 2D performance. These numbers show that the Quadro M3000M is a capable general-purpose GPU despite its age, with the G3D score being particularly strong.

The average benchmark scores in the broader database paint a nuanced picture. The R7 M340 averages 5063, which is higher than the Quadro's 4621. This is because the R7 M340 only has two high-level compute benchmarks in its record, while the Quadro's average includes its low legacy DirectX scores. The R7 M340's nearest rivals are all AMD parts: the R7 240 at 5063 (0% delta), the FirePro W4170M at 5034 (0.6% delta), the R5 M430 at 5018 (0.9% delta), and the R7 Graphics at 4998 (1.3% delta). This shows the R7 M340 sits at the very bottom of the mobile GPU hierarchy.

The Quadro M3000M's nearest rivals are a mixed bag. The GeForce GTX 970M scores 4628, a 0.1% delta. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 4657, a -0.8% delta. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB also scores 4657, a -0.8% delta. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577, a 1% delta. This clustering shows that the Quadro M3000M's average score places it in a competitive mid-range band, despite its low percentile ranking of 27. The R7 M340's percentile of 30 is actually higher, but this is purely a function of the benchmark mix and does not reflect real-world performance parity.