AMD Radeon Vega 3 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

AMD Radeon Vega 3 and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they represent different eras and design philosophies. The benchmark data shows a clear, though narrow, performance advantage for the AMD part in the one test where both were measured. The recorded average benchmark scores place the AMD Radeon Vega 3 at 4268, which is 12.9% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's average of 3718. This lead is reflected in their percentile rankings among all GPUs, with the Vega 3 sitting at the 25th percentile and the Quadro 3000M at the 22nd percentile. The data indicates that while neither part is a performance leader, the newer AMD integrated processor holds a measurable edge over the older NVIDIA discrete mobile workstation GPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scored 3963, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scored 3718. This results in a decisive win for the AMD Radeon Vega 3, with a delta of 6.6%. This is a meaningful margin, indicating that the Vega 3's compute capabilities are noticeably stronger in this OpenCL workload.

The data shows that the AMD Radeon Vega 3's lead in OpenCL is not an isolated incident. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4268, which is significantly higher than the Quadro 3000M's average of 3718. This 550-point gap suggests a consistent performance advantage for the AMD part beyond just the single head-to-head test.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides further context for their respective performance levels. The AMD Radeon Vega 3's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M, which has an average score of 4282. The Vega 3 trails this rival by a razor-thin margin of 0.3%. It also sits within a very tight performance cluster, being just 0.6% behind the AMD FirePro W2100 and 1.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6, while leading the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M by 0.6%.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, which has an average score of 3717, making the two virtually identical with a 0% delta. The Quadro 3000M also trades blows with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M, which is 0.6% faster, and the NVIDIA GeForce 825M, which is 0.6% slower. Its performance envelope is further defined by the AMD Radeon HD 6770, which it leads by 1.9%. These figures show that the Quadro 3000M is competitively positioned within its own performance tier, but that tier is simply below the one occupied by the Radeon Vega 3.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 is the clear winner in the compute-oriented OpenCL benchmark. This suggests that for tasks that leverage general-purpose GPU computing through OpenCL, the Vega 3 is the more capable option. Its higher shading unit count, 192 versus 240 for the Quadro, combined with a much higher boost clock of 1100 MHz compared to the Quadro's unspecified clock, likely contributes to its superior FP32 performance of 422.4 GFLOPS versus 432.0 GFLOPS, which is a negligible difference.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M does not win any of the recorded head-to-head benchmarks. However, the data suggests its strengths lie in different areas. While its FP32 performance is nearly identical to the Vega 3, its dedicated memory subsystem is a significant architectural advantage. The Quadro 3000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. In contrast, the Radeon Vega 3 uses system shared memory, with bandwidth that is system dependent. For workloads that are highly sensitive to memory bandwidth, such as certain texture-heavy or large-dataset tasks, the Quadro's dedicated 80.00 GB/s could provide a tangible benefit that is not captured in the OpenCL compute score.

The Quadro 3000M also has a higher texture rate of 18.00 GTexel/s compared to the Vega 3's 13.20 GTexel/s. This could make it more proficient in tasks that involve heavy texture filtering. Similarly, its pixel rate of 4.500 GPixel/s is slightly higher than the Vega 3's 4.400 GPixel/s, which could offer a marginal advantage in fill-rate-limited scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 has a higher average benchmark score of 4268, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's average of 3718.

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon Vega 3 in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 scored 3963 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 6.6% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's score of 3718.

Q: What is the difference in their overall performance percentiles?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 is at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is at the 22nd percentile.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M have any performance advantages according to the recorded data?

A: The Quadro 3000M does not win any recorded head-to-head benchmarks, but it has a higher texture rate (18.00 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (4.500 GPixel/s) than the Vega 3, and it has a dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory interface with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3's Picasso chip has a transistor density of 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's GF104 chip has a density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter.

Q: What are the DirectX and Vulkan API support levels for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and does not have recorded Vulkan support.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ substantially in their core specifications. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 features 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 4 render output units (ROPs). In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite the Quadro having more of these units, the Vega 3's higher clock speeds result in comparable compute rates. The Vega 3 has a boost clock of 1100 MHz, which helps it achieve a pixel rate of 4.400 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 13.20 GTexel/s. The Quadro 3000M, with unspecified base and boost clocks, achieves a pixel rate of 4.500 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 18.00 GTexel/s.

Memory configuration is another major point of divergence. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 uses system shared memory, meaning its size, type, and bus width are all system dependent. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M comes with a fixed 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a fixed 80.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth. This is a fundamental architectural difference, with the Quadro offering a dedicated memory pool and the Vega 3 relying on the host system's RAM.

The power profiles are also very different. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has a TDP of 75 W. This makes the Vega 3 a much more power-efficient part. The Vega 3 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a slot width of "IGP", while the Quadro 3000M is an MXM module with a slot width of "MXM Module".

Architecture Differences

The architectural designs are generations apart. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 is built on the GCN 5.0 architecture and is part of the "Vega IGP (Picasso)" generation. It is manufactured on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its chip, codenamed Picasso, contains 4,940 million transistors on a die size of 210 mm². This results in a high transistor density of 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M uses the older Fermi architecture and belongs to the "Quadro Fermi-M (x000M)" generation. It is produced on a 40 nm process at TSMC. Its chip, the GF104, is larger but less dense, containing 1,950 million transistors on a die size of 332 mm². This gives it a transistor density of just 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter.

In terms of API support, the AMD part is more modern. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no recorded Vulkan support. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 also supports FP16 computation at a 2:1 rate, with 844.8 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has no recorded FP16 capability. The Vega 3's predecessor is the GCN 3.0 IGP and its successor is the Vega II IGP, while the Quadro 3000M's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes a clear case for the AMD Radeon Vega 3. It wins the only direct head-to-head comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 6.6% lead. Its average benchmark score of 4268 is 14.8% higher than the Quadro 3000M's 3718, and it holds a higher percentile ranking at 25 compared to 22. For users seeking the better raw compute performance in OpenCL workloads, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 is the superior choice according to the database.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M does have its own merits, primarily in its dedicated memory subsystem. The 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth is a significant asset that the Vega 3, with its system dependent shared memory, cannot match. This could make the Quadro 3000M the better option for specific applications that rely heavily on memory bandwidth and are not purely compute-bound. Its higher texture rate of 18.00 GTexel/s also suggests it could handle texture-heavy workloads more efficiently.

The choice between these two comes down to the specific workload. For general compute performance and modern API support, including Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1), the AMD Radeon Vega 3 is the clear winner. For tasks that require a dedicated, high-bandwidth memory pool and higher texture throughput, the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M may be the more appropriate, albeit older, option. The data shows that the Vega 3 is the faster and more feature-rich GPU overall, while the Quadro 3000M retains a niche advantage in memory and rasterization-related specifications.