AMD Radeon R7 M445 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M445 and NVIDIA Quadro K3100M are two end-of-life mobile graphics processors aimed at very different segments, yet they land surprisingly close in overall benchmark percentiles. The AMD chip sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA part occupies the 30th percentile, making them direct competitors in raw performance rankings despite their architectural and generational gaps. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark, where the Quadro K3100M decisively outperforms the Radeon, but a closer look at their surrounding rivalries and internal specifications reveals a more nuanced story about where each GPU actually excels.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the clear winner in the only direct benchmark comparison available. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 6154 against the Radeon R7 M445's 5358, a 12.9% advantage that puts it firmly ahead in compute-oriented workloads. This is consistent with its professional-grade positioning—the Quadro line targets workstation tasks like CAD, scientific visualization, and content creation, where OpenCL performance is critical. The Quadro also holds a significant lead in theoretical throughput metrics, with 1,084.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the Radeon's 588.8 GFLOPS, nearly doubling the compute ceiling.

The AMD Radeon R7 M445, however, wins on efficiency of design and integration. It is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 28 nm process node and a die size of just 125 mm², compared to the Quadro's 294 mm² MXM module. The Radeon's transistor density is slightly higher at 12.4M per mm² versus 12.0M, indicating a more compact implementation. While the Quadro has a 75 W TDP, the Radeon's TDP is not listed, suggesting it may be lower for thin-and-light laptops. The Radeon also supports DirectX 12_0, whereas the Quadro only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0), giving the AMD part an edge in modern gaming API compatibility. In terms of raw benchmark percentile, the Radeon's 31st percentile edges out the Quadro's 30th, a marginal but notable distinction.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is stark. The AMD Radeon R7 M445 uses the GCN 3.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Meso, part of the Gem System (R7 M400) generation. It packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, with 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, in contrast, is built on the older Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, part of the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation. It uses 3,540 million transistors across a 294 mm² die, which is more than double the transistor count and more than double the die area. This allows the Quadro to field 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs—each of these resources is at least 2.4 times greater than the Radeon's.

Memory architecture also diverges significantly. Both have 4 GB of GDDR5, but the Quadro uses a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Radeon is constrained to a 64-bit bus delivering just 32.00 GB/s. That is a 3.2x bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA part, which is critical for memory-intensive workloads. Clock speeds tell a different story: the Radeon runs at a base of 780 MHz and boosts to 920 MHz, while the Quadro is locked at a flat 706 MHz for both base and boost. The Radeon's memory also runs faster at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro's 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), but the narrow bus negates that speed advantage. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.2.175, a slightly newer version than the Radeon's 1.2.170, though the Radeon counters with better DirectX support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is heavily one-sided. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6154, while the AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5358. The deltaPct is -12.9% from the Radeon's perspective, meaning the AMD part trails by nearly 13%. This is a substantial gap that reflects the Quadro's superior compute resources: 768 shading units and 45.18 GTexel/s texture rate versus the Radeon's 320 shading units and 18.40 GTexel/s. The Quadro also produces 11.30 GPixel/s pixel rate, compared to 7.360 GPixel/s for the Radeon.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the Radeon R7 M445 sits in a tight cluster. It is only 0.2% behind the Intel UHD Graphics P630 (score 5370), 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322), 0.8% ahead of the GeForce 930A (5317), and 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 980M (5308). This suggests the Radeon is firmly in entry-level territory, trading blows with integrated and low-end discrete solutions. The Quadro K3100M, meanwhile, is 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161), 1.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211), 1.6% behind the GeForce GTX 760M (5236), and 1.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5063). The Quadro's rivals are slightly older or lower-tier, but its own score of 6154 in OpenCL is notably higher than its 5154 average benchmark score, which includes its Metal (3823) and Vulkan (5484) results. That average is dragged down by the Metal score, which likely reflects a less optimized driver path for that API.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the direct Geekbench OpenCL comparison?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins decisively, scoring 6154 against the AMD Radeon R7 M445's 5358, a 12.9% advantage.

Q: How do their overall benchmark percentiles compare?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M445 ranks at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M sits at the 30th percentile, making them nearly equivalent in overall standing.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth via a 256-bit bus, while the Radeon R7 M445 has only 32.00 GB/s via a 64-bit bus, a 3.2x gap.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, compared to 320 on the AMD Radeon R7 M445, more than double.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M445 support a newer DirectX version?

A: Yes, the Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro only supports DirectX 12 (11_0), giving the AMD part a higher feature level.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M445 has an average benchmark score of 5358, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M averages 5154, though the Quadro's OpenCL score alone is higher.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is identical at 28 nm from TSMC, but transistor counts diverge sharply: 1,550 million for the Radeon versus 3,540 million for the Quadro. Die size follows suit at 125 mm² versus 294 mm². The Radeon's base clock is 780 MHz with a boost of 920 MHz, while the Quadro is fixed at 706 MHz for both. Memory clocks also differ: the Radeon runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro's 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The memory bus width is 64-bit for AMD and 256-bit for NVIDIA, producing bandwidths of 32.00 GB/s and 102.4 GB/s, respectively.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the Quadro: shading units (320 vs 768), TMUs (20 vs 64), and ROPs (8 vs 32) all favor NVIDIA. Pixel rate is 7.360 GPixel/s for the Radeon and 11.30 GPixel/s for the Quadro; texture rate is 18.40 GTexel/s versus 45.18 GTexel/s; FP32 is 588.8 GFLOPS versus 1,084.4 GFLOPS. The Radeon supports FP16 at 588.8 GFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability. The Quadro has a TDP of 75 W, whereas the Radeon's TDP is not specified. Slot width differs: the Radeon is an IGP, and the Quadro is an MXM Module with no power connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD and MXM-B (3.0) for NVIDIA. Release dates are separated by nearly three years: the Radeon launched on 2016-05-14, while the Quadro launched on 2013-07-22. Their production statuses are both end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on use case. For compute-heavy professional workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the superior choice. Its OpenCL score of 6154 is 12.9% higher than the Radeon's 5358, and its massive advantages in shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 32.00 GB/s) make it the obvious pick for tasks that stress parallel processing and large data sets. The Quadro's 1,084.4 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus the Radeon's 588.8 GFLOPS reinforces this, as does its higher pixel and texture rates.

For gamers or users prioritizing modern API support, the AMD Radeon R7 M445 has a subtle edge. It supports DirectX 12_0, while the Quadro is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), which could matter for newer titles. The Radeon also has a higher boost clock (920 MHz versus 706 MHz) and faster effective memory speed (4 Gbps versus 3.2 Gbps), though the narrow bus limits real-world gains. Its IGP form factor suggests it is designed for lightweight systems where the Quadro's 75 W TDP and MXM module would be impractical.

The overall percentiles tell a cautionary tale: the Radeon ranks at the 31st percentile and the Quadro at the 30th, meaning neither is a high-performance part by modern standards. The Radeon's nearest rivals include integrated Intel graphics and low-end GeForce parts, while the Quadro's rivals are similarly aged mobile workstation GPUs. The Quadro's average benchmark score of 5154 is actually lower than the Radeon's 5358, but that average includes a weak Metal score of 3823, which suggests the Quadro's OpenCL strength is not universal across all APIs. Ultimately, the Quadro K3100M wins the compute crown, but the Radeon R7 M445 offers a more modern feature set in a more power-efficient package. Choose the Quadro for serious number-crunching; choose the Radeon for broader API compatibility and portability.