GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and AMD Radeon RX 560 are two end-of-life graphics solutions that, despite landing within 1.1% of each other in average benchmark score, serve fundamentally different purposes. The Quadro M3000M wins 7 of 8 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, decisively outperforming the RX 560 in DirectX workloads and compute tasks, while the RX 560 counters with a single but clear victory in 2D graphics throughput. The data indicates the Quadro M3000M is the superior choice for graphics-intensive and legacy API performance, whereas the RX 560 holds a narrow edge in specific desktop-oriented tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M3000M dominates the benchmark suite, claiming victory in every DirectX test and both compute-oriented benchmarks. Its largest margins come in legacy and high-level DirectX workloads: it leads by 71.9% in PassMark DirectX 9, by 68% in DirectX 11, and by 62.5% in DirectX 10. These are not marginal differences — the Quadro M3000M nearly doubles the RX 560's score in DirectX 9 (98 vs 57) and delivers over 1.5 times the performance in DirectX 11 (42 vs 25). The pattern extends to modern graphics with a 51% advantage in PassMark G3D (5543 vs 3671) and a 48.9% lead in GPU compute (2139 vs 1437). Even in DirectX 12, where the gap narrows to 9.5%, the Quadro M3000M still comes out ahead (23 vs 21).

The AMD Radeon RX 560's sole victory comes in PassMark G2D, where it scores 485 against the Quadro M3000M's 402, a 17.1% advantage. This 2D performance win suggests the RX 560 handles desktop compositing, window management, and basic 2D acceleration more efficiently. The RX 560 also edges ahead in OpenCL performance relative to its average, scoring 16472 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Quadro M3000M's 16646, though the Quadro still wins that head-to-head by 1.1%. For users prioritizing raw graphics rendering, compute, or compatibility with older DirectX titles, the Quadro M3000M is the clear choice; for 2D-centric workloads, the RX 560 offers measurable superiority.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs stem from different architectural philosophies and manufacturing processes. The Quadro M3000M uses NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process, built around the GM204 chip with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The RX 560 employs AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, using the Polaris 21 chip with 3,000 million transistors on a much smaller 123 mm² die. This process advantage gives the RX 560 a significantly higher transistor density of 24.4M per mm² compared to the Quadro M3000M's 13.1M per mm², allowing AMD to pack more logic into less silicon.

Clock speeds favor the RX 560 substantially. The AMD part runs at a 1175 MHz base and 1275 MHz boost, while the Quadro M3000M operates at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. Memory clocks follow the same trend: the RX 560's GDDR5 runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro M3000M's 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Despite this, the Quadro M3000M achieves higher memory bandwidth at 160.4 GB/s thanks to its 256-bit bus, compared to the RX 560's 112.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. Both cards feature 1024 shading units and 64 texture mapping units, but the Quadro M3000M has double the ROPs (32 vs 16), which explains its superior pixel rate of 29.57 GPixel/s versus 20.40 GPixel/s.

Compute capabilities diverge notably. The Quadro M3000M delivers 1.892 TFLOPS FP32 performance, while the RX 560 reaches 2.611 TFLOPS, a 38% higher raw compute figure. The RX 560 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (2.611 TFLOPS), whereas the Quadro M3000M lists no FP16 capability. Texture rate favors the RX 560 at 81.60 GTexel/s versus 59.14 GTexel/s for the Quadro M3000M. API support is similar but not identical: both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro M3000M supports Vulkan 1.4 while the RX 560 is limited to Vulkan 1.3, and the DirectX feature levels differ (12_1 for NVIDIA, 12_0 for AMD). The Quadro M3000M also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus the RX 560's PCIe 3.0 x8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the PassMark DirectX 9 test, where the Quadro M3000M scores 98 against the RX 560's 57, a 71.9% advantage. This is the largest relative margin in the entire comparison and indicates the Maxwell architecture retains exceptional efficiency in legacy DirectX workloads. Similarly, DirectX 11 shows a 68% lead (42 vs 25), reinforcing that NVIDIA's older architecture handles traditional rasterization pipelines with far greater effectiveness than AMD's GCN 4.0 design.

The PassMark G3D score of 5543 for the Quadro M3000M versus 3671 for the RX 560 represents a 51% overall 3D performance advantage. This aggregate metric, which combines multiple DirectX tests, confirms the Quadro M3000M's dominance is not confined to a single API but reflects broad superiority in graphics rendering. The GPU compute test follows the same pattern: the Quadro M3000M scores 2139 versus 1437, a 48.9% lead, despite the RX 560's higher theoretical FP32 throughput. This suggests the Quadro M3000M's memory bandwidth and driver optimization play a larger role in real compute workloads than raw TFLOPS.

DirectX 12 narrows the gap considerably, with the Quadro M3000M winning 23 to 21, a 9.5% margin. Both cards struggle in this modern API, with scores in the low 20s, indicating neither is well-suited for contemporary DirectX 12 titles. The Geekbench OpenCL result is similarly close: the Quadro M3000M scores 16646 versus 16472, a 1.1% edge that falls within typical run-to-run variance. The RX 560's only win, PassMark G2D at 485 versus 402, represents a 17.1% improvement in 2D throughput, a meaningful difference for desktop productivity but irrelevant for gaming or rendering workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better overall 3D performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is decisively ahead in 3D workloads, scoring 5543 in PassMark G3D versus 3671 for the AMD Radeon RX 560, a 51% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX 560 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the RX 560 wins the PassMark G2D test with a score of 485 against the Quadro M3000M's 402, a 17.1% margin that indicates superior 2D desktop performance.

Q: How do the two compare in compute performance?

A: The Quadro M3000M leads by 48.9% in PassMark GPU compute (2139 vs 1437), despite the RX 560 having higher theoretical FP32 throughput of 2.611 TFLOPS versus 1.892 TFLOPS.

Q: Which card supports newer API versions?

A: The Quadro M3000M supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RX 560 supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Quadro M3000M offers 160.4 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the RX 560 provides 112.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, a 43% bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Are these cards suitable for DirectX 12 gaming?

A: Neither performs well in DirectX 12, with the Quadro M3000M scoring 23 and the RX 560 scoring 21, a 9.5% margin that reflects weak modern API support for both.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M | AMD Radeon RX 560 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 24.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 823 MHz | 1175 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 924 MHz | 1275 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps) | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps) |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 29.57 GPixel/s | 20.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 59.14 GTexel/s | 81.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.892 TFLOPS | 2.611 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | None | 2.611 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | None | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| DirectX Version | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Length | None | 170 mm (6.7 inches) |

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the superior graphics processor for nearly all workloads measured. It wins 7 of 8 head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 9.5% in DirectX 12 to 71.9% in DirectX 9. The 51% lead in PassMark G3D and 48.9% lead in GPU compute make it the clear choice for 3D rendering, gaming, and compute tasks. Its 256-bit memory bus and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth provide a structural advantage that offsets the RX 560's higher clock speeds and theoretical FP32 throughput. The Quadro M3000M also supports a more recent Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.3) and a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 12_0). The RX 560's only meaningful victory is in 2D performance, where its 485 G2D score bests the Quadro M3000M's 402 by 17.1%, making it a better option for desktop productivity and non-3D applications. The RX 560 also offers a smaller physical footprint at 170 mm length and a lower transistor count, but these physical attributes do not translate into benchmark wins. For anyone prioritizing graphics performance, legacy API compatibility, or compute throughput, the Quadro M3000M is the data-backed recommendation. The RX 560 is only preferable when 2D desktop acceleration is the primary concern.