AMD Radeon RX 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a decisive split between these two mobile-class graphics processors. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the AMD Radeon RX 560 wins both, and the margins are substantial. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 560 scores 18,941 against the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M’s 3,823, a delta of roughly 79.8 percent in AMD’s favor. That is not a narrow lead; it is a generational gap expressed in raw compute throughput.

The OpenCL result tells a similar story, though slightly less lopsided. The RX 560 posts 16,472, while the Quadro K3100M reaches 6,154. The delta here is about 62.6 percent. What makes this interesting is that both cards are listed with a 75 W TDP, so the efficiency jump is baked into the architecture itself rather than into a larger power envelope. The older Kepler part simply cannot match the Polaris part in these synthetic workloads, and the database shows no benchmark where the Quadro overtakes the RX 560.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the picture gets more complicated. The Quadro K3100M has an average benchmark score of 5,154 across its three recorded tests, while the RX 560 averages 4,569 across nine tests. The difference is partially explained by the test mix: the RX 560 includes several Passmark tests with low scores, such as a DirectX 10 result of 16 and a DirectX 9 result of 57, which drag down its average. The Quadro, by contrast, only has Geekbench entries. So while the head-to-head tests show a clear AMD victory, the aggregate data places the Quadro slightly higher in the database’s overall ranking. That is a nuance worth holding onto.

The percentile rankings reinforce this. The Quadro sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, while the RX 560 sits at the 26th. Both are mid-to-low performers by modern standards, but the Quadro’s higher percentile despite losing both head-to-head tests suggests that its three Geekbench scores are more consistent. The RX 560’s Passmark results are erratic, with a G3D score of 3,671 but a G2D score of only 485. The Quadro has no Passmark data, so direct comparison there is impossible, but the available numbers indicate that the RX 560’s average is pulled down by tests where it does not excel.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward recommendation for compute-heavy tasks. The AMD Radeon RX 560 is the stronger choice in Geekbench Metal and OpenCL, and those are the only directly comparable benchmarks. If the workload relies on those APIs, the RX 560 is ahead by a wide margin. The Quadro K3100M, however, has a higher average benchmark score and a higher percentile ranking, which suggests that its performance is more balanced across the tests it does have.

Who should pick the Quadro? The database shows it is an end-of-life product from 2013, built on a 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. It was designed for professional mobile workstations, as indicated by its MXM Module slot width and portable-device-dependent display outputs. If the use case is legacy compatibility with Kepler-era software or a specific workstation chassis that requires an MXM-B (3.0) interface, the Quadro has a role. Its 4 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is respectable for its era.

Who should pick the RX 560? The data suggests anyone running modern compute workloads. It is a 2017 part, built on a 14 nm process with 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, and it has a much higher transistor density: 24.4M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm² for the Quadro. Its base clock of 1175 MHz and boost clock of 1275 MHz are far above the Quadro’s fixed 706 MHz. The RX 560 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. For newer APIs, the RX 560 is the clear pick.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 560 wins decisively, scoring 18,941 versus the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M’s 3,823. The delta is about 79.8 percent in AMD’s favor.

Q: Does the Quadro K3100M have a higher average benchmark score?

A: Yes. The Quadro K3100M averages 5,154 across three Geekbench tests, while the RX 560 averages 4,569 across nine tests, which include several low Passmark results.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 102.4 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the RX 560 has 112.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The RX 560 has slightly higher bandwidth despite a narrower bus, due to faster memory clocks.

Q: Which GPU supports newer APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 560 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life?

A: Yes. The database lists both as end-of-life products. The Quadro K3100M was released in 2013, and the RX 560 was released in 2017.

Q: How do their pixel rates compare?

A: The RX 560 has a pixel rate of 20.40 GPixel/s, while the Quadro K3100M has 11.30 GPixel/s. The RX 560 is nearly twice as fast in this metric.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses a GK104 chip on a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the AMD Radeon RX 560 uses a Polaris 21 chip on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The Quadro has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The RX 560 has 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 24.4M per mm². That density advantage is a direct result of the smaller process node.

Clock speeds diverge sharply. The Quadro runs at a fixed 706 MHz for both base and boost, with memory at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The RX 560 runs at 1175 MHz base and 1275 MHz boost, with memory at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Memory bus widths also differ: the Quadro uses a 256-bit interface, while the RX 560 uses 128-bit. Despite the narrower bus, the RX 560 achieves higher bandwidth at 112.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

Shading units, texture units, and ROPs are all different. The Quadro has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 560 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. The RX 560’s pixel rate is 20.40 GPixel/s versus 11.30 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and its texture rate is 81.60 GTexel/s versus 45.18 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is dramatically higher on the RX 560 at 2.611 TFLOPS, compared to 1,084.4 GFLOPS on the Quadro. The RX 560 also lists FP16 at 2.611 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro has no FP16 entry.

Form factors and interfaces differ as well. The Quadro is an MXM Module with MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and no power connectors. The RX 560 is a dual-slot card with PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, also with no power connectors, but it has a suggested PSU of 250 W. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for the Quadro, while the RX 560 lists 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 560 has a listed length of 170 mm (6.7 inches); the Quadro has no dimensions recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is fundamental. The Quadro K3100M is built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, which dates to 2012-2013. Kepler was designed for efficiency per watt in its era, but it lacks the modern compute features that followed in Maxwell, Pascal, and later architectures. The RX 560 is built on AMD’s GCN 4.0, specifically the Polaris 21 chip. GCN 4.0 introduced improved geometry processing, better asynchronous compute, and more robust driver support for modern APIs. The database lists the Quadro’s generation as “Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M)” and the RX 560’s as “Polaris (RX 500).” The predecessor and successor lines also differ: the Quadro follows “Quadro Fermi-M” and leads to “Quadro Maxwell-M,” while the RX 560 follows “Arctic Islands” and leads to “Vega.”

The process node difference is the clearest architectural driver. The Quadro’s 28 nm TSMC process is two generations behind the RX 560’s 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. That explains the transistor density gap: 12.0M per mm² versus 24.4M per mm². The RX 560 packs nearly as many transistors into less than half the die area. The RX 560 also has a higher base clock by 469 MHz, which compounds the architectural efficiency gains.

Cache and memory architecture are not fully specified in the database, but the memory type is the same: both use GDDR5. The RX 560’s effective memory speed of 7 Gbps is more than double the Quadro’s 3.2 Gbps. That, combined with the RX 560’s higher clock speed, yields the bandwidth advantage despite the narrower bus. The RX 560’s ROP count is halved relative to the Quadro, which is unusual, but its pixel rate is still higher due to the massive clock advantage.

Feature support also diverges. The RX 560 lists DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. OpenGL is identical at 4.6. The RX 560’s newer API support means it can handle more recent game and compute workloads, while the Quadro is locked to an older feature set.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 560 wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is 2.611 TFLOPS, more than double the Quadro’s 1,084.4 GFLOPS. Its texture rate is 81.60 GTexel/s versus 45.18 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is 20.40 GPixel/s versus 11.30 GPixel/s. In the two head-to-head benchmarks, it wins both: Geekbench Metal by 79.8 percent and Geekbench OpenCL by 62.6 percent. The RX 560 also has a higher memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s, a faster effective memory speed of 7 Gbps, and support for newer APIs. It is the clear choice for workloads that stress shader compute, modern API features, or high-throughput texture operations.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins in aggregate consistency and percentile ranking. Its average benchmark score of 5,154 is higher than the RX 560’s 4,569, and its 30th percentile versus the RX 560’s 26th percentile reflects that. The Quadro also has a wider memory bus at 256-bit versus 128-bit, which can be an advantage in certain bandwidth-sensitive legacy workloads that do not scale with raw clock speed. Its 32 ROPs versus 16 ROPs on the RX 560 may help in fill-rate-limited scenarios, though the RX 560’s higher pixel rate complicates that conclusion. The Quadro’s MXM form factor and lack of display outputs tied to specific ports make it suited for proprietary workstation chassis where the RX 560’s dual-slot PCIe design would not fit.

The database does not record a single benchmark where the Quadro wins. That is a striking outcome. Two GPUs from different eras, with different architectures and process nodes, and the newer AMD part sweeps the shared tests. The Quadro’s higher average comes only from the fact that its test set is limited to Geekbench, while the RX 560’s Passmark scores drag its mean down. If the Passmark tests were removed, the RX 560’s average would rise significantly. The data implies that for any modern compute task, the RX 560 is the better tool. The Quadro remains relevant only for legacy compatibility or specific hardware sockets.