AMD Radeon RX 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 560 and NVIDIA Quadro K3000M represent two very different eras of mobile graphics, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a decisive performance gap: the RX 560 wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by a staggering 288.4%. However, the Quadro K3000M holds a specific niche as a professional mobile solution from 2012, and the choice between them depends entirely on whether legacy compatibility or raw modern compute matters more.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 560 is the clear performance victor, delivering 288.4% higher OpenCL score (16472 vs 4241) than the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M. The RX 560 sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K3000M sits at the 25th — nearly identical overall standing, yet the RX 560 achieves this with modern efficiency and features. For anyone needing contemporary DirectX 12 (12_0) support, Vulkan 1.3, or 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, the RX 560 is the only rational choice. The Quadro K3000M, with its DirectX 12 (11_0) limitation and 2 GB VRAM, is strictly for legacy professional workloads where its Kepler architecture and MXM form factor are required. The data indicates no scenario where the Quadro wins on performance; its value is purely historical or platform-specific.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is fundamental. The RX 560 uses the Polaris 21 chip on GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². In contrast, the Quadro K3000M uses the GK104 chip on Kepler architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. It contains 3,540 million transistors spread across a much larger 294 mm² die, with a density of just 12.0M per mm². The RX 560's modern node gives it a 2x density advantage — smaller, cooler, and more efficient.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The RX 560 runs at 1175 MHz base and 1275 MHz boost, while the Quadro K3000M is locked at 654 MHz for both base and boost. Memory speeds diverge sharply: the RX 560 uses 1750 MHz GDDR5 (7 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K3000M uses 700 MHz GDDR5 (2.8 Gbps effective) on a wider 256-bit bus, but only achieves 89.60 GB/s — the RX 560 wins bandwidth despite half the bus width. Memory capacity also favors AMD: 4 GB vs 2 GB.

Compute resources are lopsided. The RX 560 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, producing 20.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, 81.60 GTexel/s texture rate, and 2.611 TFLOPS FP32. The Quadro K3000M has just 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, yielding 7.848 GPixel/s, 31.39 GTexel/s, and only 753.4 GFLOPS FP32. The RX 560 outperforms by 3.5x in FP32 compute. The RX 560's FP16 is 2.611 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the Quadro lists no FP16 capability. API support diverges: RX 560 offers DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3; Quadro K3000M offers DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Physical design differs drastically. The RX 560 is a dual-slot card, 170 mm (6.7 inches) long, with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP requiring a 250 W PSU. It uses PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and outputs 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Quadro K3000M is an MXM Module with a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent" — it's designed for laptops, not desktop expansion. The Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0) bus interface.

Both are end-of-life products. The RX 560 released April 17, 2017, succeeding Arctic Islands and preceding Vega. The Quadro K3000M released May 31, 2012, succeeding Quadro Fermi-M and preceding Quadro Maxwell-M. The RX 560 launched at 99 USD MSRP; the Quadro has no listed launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one benchmark overlaps between the two GPUs, making the comparison straightforward. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon RX 560 scores 16472, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241. That's a 288.4% delta in favor of AMD — the RX 560 is nearly four times faster in this compute test. This single data point encapsulates the entire generational leap: a 2017 mainstream card utterly dominates a 2012 professional mobile chip.

Beyond the shared test, the RX 560's broader benchmark suite paints a fuller picture. Its average benchmark score is 4569, placing it at the 26th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (avg 4577, -0.2% delta), Intel HD Graphics P530 (avg 4560, +0.2%), NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (avg 4621, -1.1%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (avg 4628, -1.3%). The RX 560 sits in a tight cluster — within 1.3% of its nearest competitors — showing that while it wins over the Quadro K3000M, it's not a top-tier card overall.

In individual Passmark tests, the RX 560 scores: DirectX 9 at 57, DirectX 10 at 16, DirectX 11 at 25, DirectX 12 at 21, G2D at 485, G3D at 3671, and GPU Compute at 1437. The Quadro K3000M has no Passmark results in the fact pack, so no comparison is possible there. The Quadro's average benchmark score is 4241, with nearest rivals including AMD Radeon Vega 3 (avg 4268, -0.6%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (avg 4282, -1%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (avg 4193, +1.2%), and AMD FirePro W2100 (avg 4295, -1.3%). The Quadro's 25th percentile ranking is nearly identical to the RX 560's 26th, but the RX 560 achieves this with far more headroom.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 560 delivers 2.611 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M delivers only 753.4 GFLOPS. The RX 560 is approximately 3.5x faster in FP32 compute and wins the Geekbench OpenCL test by 288.4%.

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The RX 560 has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K3000M has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s. Despite half the bus width, the RX 560 provides 25% more bandwidth.

Q: How do their DirectX and Vulkan support compare?

A: The RX 560 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro K3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The RX 560 has a newer feature level for DirectX and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: Both have a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, but the RX 560 achieves far higher performance at that power. The RX 560's 14 nm process with 24.4M transistors/mm² density is significantly more efficient than the Quadro's 28 nm process at 12.0M/mm².

Q: Are these cards still relevant today?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The RX 560's 26th percentile ranking places it among mainstream GPUs, while the Quadro K3000M's 25th percentile is similar overall but with far lower absolute performance. The RX 560 remains usable for modern APIs; the Quadro is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: What form factors do they use?

A: The RX 560 is a dual-slot desktop card, 170 mm long, with PCIe 3.0 x8 and standard display outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0b, DisplayPort 1.4a). The Quadro K3000M is an MXM Module using MXM-B (3.0) interface, designed for laptops with portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon RX 560 wins in: Every measurable performance category. The 288.4% OpenCL advantage is the headline, but the underlying specs reinforce it: 3.5x FP32 compute, 25% more memory bandwidth, double the VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB), and 3.5x pixel rate (20.40 vs 7.848 GPixel/s). The RX 560 wins on modern API support with DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, making it viable for contemporary games and compute. Its 14 nm process and 1275 MHz boost clock enable this performance within the same 75 W TDP. The RX 560's desktop form factor with standard display outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0b, DisplayPort 1.4a) makes it a drop-in solution for desktop builds. Its 170 mm length fits most cases, and the PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is universally compatible. The 4 GB GDDR5 memory at 112.0 GB/s provides headroom for modern textures and datasets. The RX 560's launch MSRP of 99 USD — stated once here — reflects its mainstream positioning, though no pricing comparisons are made.

NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins in: Only niche, non-performance categories. Its MXM Module form factor suits specific laptop chassis that require this interface — the RX 560 cannot physically fit there. The 256-bit memory bus is wider, though it delivers less bandwidth due to lower clocks. The Quadro's 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die offer higher raw transistor count, but at 28 nm this translates to lower density and efficiency. Its Kepler architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_0), which is a subset of the RX 560's 12_0 feature level. The 32 ROPs double the RX 560's 16, but the Quadro's lower clock speeds (654 MHz vs 1175 MHz) negate this advantage in practice — its pixel rate is 7.848 GPixel/s versus 20.40 GPixel/s. The Quadro K3000M's predecessor and successor lines (Quadro Fermi-M and Maxwell-M) show its place in a legacy professional lineup, but the data shows no performance scenario where it wins. Its 25th percentile ranking vs the RX 560's 26th is statistically identical, yet the RX 560 achieves that standing with 288% more OpenCL performance. For vintage laptop repairs or specific professional mobile workstations requiring MXM-B (3.0), the Quadro is the only option — but buyers should expect 2012-era performance.