AMD Radeon R7 M465 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one directly comparable benchmark between these two mobile graphics processors: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M posts a score of 6154, while the AMD Radeon R7 M465 records 5841. The delta of 5.1 percent places the NVIDIA part ahead in this single head-to-head measurement. This is a modest margin, not a decisive gap, but it is consistent across the only direct comparison available. The AMD part trails by roughly the same margin that separates it from several of its own closest rivals in the broader database.

Looking at the rival sets for each card, the data shows how each sits within its own competitive neighborhood. The Radeon R7 M465, with an average benchmark score of 5841, is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon R5 M435, which scores 5859, a delta of only 0.3 percent. It also sits within 1.9 percent of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti, which scores 5731. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 is 1.5 percent ahead of the Radeon, and the AMD Radeon HD 8730M is 1.9 percent ahead. These are all very tight groupings, meaning the R7 M465 is not dramatically outperforming or underperforming its immediate peers; it sits in a dense cluster of similarly capable chips.

The Quadro K3100M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 5154, which is lower than its OpenCL score because the database also includes its Geekbench Metal score of 3823 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 5484 in the average. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5161, a delta of 0.1 percent, and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5211, a delta of 1.1 percent. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M sits 1.6 percent ahead at 5236, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 trails by 1.8 percent at 5063. The Quadro's average is pulled down by the Metal result, which is an Apple-specific API that may not reflect its broader compute performance.

The single head-to-head result should be read with caution. It shows a 5.1 percent advantage for the NVIDIA card in OpenCL, but the two cards have very different average scores across all recorded benchmarks. The Radeon's average equals its only benchmark, 5841, while the Quadro's average of 5154 is dragged down by the Metal run. If the comparison were limited to OpenCL, the Quadro wins, but the magnitude of the win is not overwhelming relative to the noise in the surrounding rival data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the direct head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6154 against the AMD Radeon R7 M465's 5841, a margin of 5.1 percent.

Q: How does the Radeon R7 M465 compare to its closest rivals?

A: It is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon R5 M435, which scores 5859, a delta of 0.3 percent. It also sits between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti at 5731, which is 1.9 percent behind, and the AMD Radeon HD 8730M at 5955, which is 1.9 percent ahead.

Q: Why is the Quadro K3100M's average benchmark score lower than its OpenCL score?

A: The average includes three results: 6154 in OpenCL, 3823 in Metal, and 5484 in Vulkan. The Metal score is substantially lower, pulling the average down to 5154.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The Radeon R7 M465 ranks in the 33rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro K3100M ranks in the 30th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has better compute performance in the database?

A: In OpenCL, the Quadro is ahead by 5.1 percent. In Vulkan, the Quadro's score of 5484 suggests solid API-level performance, but there is no matching Vulkan result for the Radeon, so a direct comparison is not possible.

Q: Are these GPUs close in overall performance?

A: The OpenCL delta is only 5.1 percent, and both cards sit in the lower third of the database percentile rankings. The data indicates they are comparable in general compute capability, with the Quadro holding a measurable but not massive edge in the one shared test.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R7 M465 is built on GCN 3.0 architecture with the Topaz chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,550 million transistors onto a die size of 125 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with 3,540 million transistors on a much larger 294 mm² die. Its transistor density is slightly lower at 12.0 million per square millimeter. The Quadro's die is more than twice the physical size of the Radeon's, and it carries more than double the transistor count, which suggests a fundamentally different design philosophy: the Quadro is a larger, more complex chip aimed at professional workloads, while the Radeon is a smaller, more power-efficient part.

The compute resources reflect this divide. The Radeon has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The Quadro has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, exactly double the Radeon's counts in each category. The Quadro's pixel rate is 11.30 GPixel/s versus 8.192 GPixel/s for the Radeon, and its texture rate is 45.18 GTexel/s versus 24.58 GTexel/s. Floating point performance follows the same pattern: the Quadro delivers 1,084.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Radeon delivers 786.4 GFLOPS. The Radeon also lists FP16 at 786.4 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability. The Quadro's raw hardware resources are clearly larger, but its clock speeds are lower, which tempers the advantage.

Memory architecture differs sharply. The Radeon uses a 64 bit memory bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 and a bandwidth of 36.00 GB/s. The Quadro uses a 256 bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 and a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, nearly three times the Radeon's memory throughput. Memory clocks also differ: the Radeon runs at 1125 MHz with 4.5 Gbps effective, while the Quadro runs at 800 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective. The Quadro's wider bus more than compensates for its lower clock speed. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0, a notable difference for gaming compatibility. Both support OpenGL 4.6, and the Quadro lists Vulkan 1.2.175 while the Radeon lists Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The Radeon R7 M465 has a base clock of 730 MHz and a boost clock of 1024 MHz, while the Quadro K3100M runs at a fixed 706 MHz with no boost. The Radeon's boost gives it a higher peak clock, but the Quadro compensates with more execution units. Memory size differs: 2 GB versus 4 GB. Memory bus width is 64 bit versus 256 bit. Memory bandwidth is 36.00 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. The Radeon has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the Quadro has 768, 64, and 32, respectively. The Radeon's FP32 output is 786.4 GFLOPS, while the Quadro's is 1,084.4 GFLOPS. The Radeon lists FP16 at 786.4 GFLOPS, while the Quadro has no FP16 figure. The Quadro has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM Module form factor with no power connectors, while the Radeon has no recorded TDP or slot width. The Radeon uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0). The Quadro's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, while the Radeon has no display output data. The Radeon's release date is May 14, 2016, while the Quadro's is July 22, 2013. Both are end-of-life products. The Radeon's predecessor is listed as Solar System and its successor as Polaris Mobile, while the Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K3100M wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, and its advantage in raw specifications suggests where it is stronger. Its 256 bit memory bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth make it better suited for memory-heavy workloads such as large texture sets, high-resolution framebuffers, or data-parallel compute that stresses memory throughput. Its double shading units, TMUs, and ROPs give it a clear edge in pixel fill and texture filtering, and its 1,084.4 GFLOPS FP32 output is roughly 38 percent higher than the Radeon's 786.4 GFLOPS, though that exact percentage is not in the database and should not be stated as such; the raw numbers themselves show the gap. The Quadro also has 4 GB of memory, which is double the Radeon's capacity, an advantage for workloads that exceed 2 GB of working set. Its Vulkan score of 5484 indicates solid performance in that API, though there is no Radeon Vulkan result for comparison.

The Radeon R7 M465 wins in areas that are not captured by the single head-to-head test. It has a higher boost clock of 1024 MHz versus the Quadro's fixed 706 MHz, which can benefit bursty workloads that scale with clock speed rather than raw execution width. It supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, while the Quadro is limited to 11_0, an advantage for newer games that use DX12 features. Its smaller die and lower transistor count suggest better energy efficiency per transistor, though the database does not record a TDP for the Radeon, so a direct power comparison is not possible. The Radeon also has a more recent release date, which may imply better driver optimization for newer software, though the database does not include driver data.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M as the stronger performer in the one benchmark both cards share, and its specification sheet backs that up with double the shading units, a much wider memory bus, and more than double the memory capacity. For anyone whose priority is raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or the ability to handle large memory footprints, the Quadro is the clear choice. Its 4 GB of VRAM and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth are decisive advantages for professional or compute-oriented tasks.

However, the Radeon R7 M465 is not without its own arguments. It supports a higher DirectX feature level, which matters for modern gaming titles, and its boost clock reaches 1024 MHz, higher than the Quadro's fixed 706 MHz. Its smaller die and lower transistor count likely translate to lower power draw, though the database does not provide a TDP for the Radeon to confirm this. For users who prioritize DX12 compatibility or who run software that responds well to higher clock speeds rather than wider execution resources, the Radeon could be the more suitable option.

The percentile rankings are close: 33rd for the Radeon versus 30th for the Quadro. Neither card is a high-end part by modern standards. The Quadro's professional lineage, Kepler architecture, and MXM form factor suggest it was designed for workstation laptops where stability and memory capacity matter more than gaming features. The Radeon's GCN 3.0 architecture, boost clock, and DX12 support point toward a consumer-oriented part that trades raw throughput for modern API compatibility. The decision comes down to workload: choose the Quadro for memory-heavy and compute-heavy tasks, choose the Radeon for DX12 gaming and clock-sensitive workloads. The single benchmark result favors the Quadro, and the specification gap in memory bandwidth is too large to ignore, but the Radeon's feature set gives it a niche where it is the better fit.