AMD Radeon Vega 3 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a stark contrast between these two mobile graphics solutions. In the two shared tests, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M dominates decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M3000M scores 16,646 against the AMD Radeon Vega 3's 3,963, a 320% advantage. The Vulkan test tells the same story: 16,668 versus 3,961, a 320.8% lead. These aren't marginal victories; they represent a fundamentally different performance class.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this gap. The Quadro M3000M averages 4,621 across its benchmark suite, while the Vega 3 averages 4,268. Though the averages appear closer than the head-to-head deltas suggest, this is because the two GPUs were tested on different benchmark sets. The Quadro M3000M's additional Passmark tests—DirectX 9 at 98, DirectX 10 at 26, DirectX 11 at 42, DirectX 12 at 23, G2D at 402, G3D at 5,543, and compute at 2,139—provide a broader picture that the Vega 3 lacks entirely. Looking at the percentile rankings, the Quadro M3000M sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega 3 ranks at the 25th percentile. Despite the massive head-to-head deltas, both are positioned in the lower quartile of the overall GPU landscape.

The nearest rivals for each card contextualize their positions differently. The Quadro M3000M's closest competitor is the GeForce GTX 970M at 4,628 average score, a negligible 0.1% difference. Interestingly, the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB both score 4,657, sitting 0.8% above the Quadro. The Radeon R5 M230 trails at 4,577, 1% behind. For the Vega 3, the GeForce GTX 460M leads by 0.3% at 4,282, the FirePro W2100 by 0.6% at 4,295, and the RTX 4070 GDDR6 by 1.5% at 4,335, while the Quadro K3000M falls 0.6% behind at 4,241. The proximity of these scores suggests that while the head-to-head comparison is lopsided, each card competes in a crowded mid-to-low performance tier.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is profound. The Quadro M3000M uses NVIDIA's GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Vega 3 employs AMD's Picasso chip with GCN 5.0 architecture, built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference—28 nm versus 12 nm—gives AMD a significant manufacturing advantage, allowing for higher transistor density: 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter versus NVIDIA's 13.1 million.

The raw silicon characteristics tell an interesting story. The Quadro M3000M packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the Vega 3 integrates 4,940 million transistors on a much smaller 210 mm² die. Despite having fewer total transistors, the Vega 3's denser design reflects its newer manufacturing process. The Quadro's larger die and older process explain its 75 W TDP, while the Vega 3 sips power at just 15 W—a 5x difference that reflects both process advantages and the Vega 3's integrated nature.

The compute configurations diverge sharply. The Quadro M3000M features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Vega 3 counters with just 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. These numbers translate directly to throughput: the Quadro achieves 29.57 GPixel/s pixel rate and 59.14 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 4.40 GPixel/s and 13.20 GTexel/s for the Vega 3. Floating-point performance shows the Quadro M3000M delivering 1.892 TFLOPS FP32, while the Vega 3 manages 422.4 GFLOPS FP32—though the Vega 3 does offer 844.8 GFLOPS FP16 via a 2:1 ratio, a feature the Quadro lacks entirely.

Memory architecture separates these products into different categories entirely. The Quadro M3000M uses 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 3 relies on system shared memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This fundamental difference means the Quadro never contends with main memory contention, while the Vega 3's performance scales with the host system's memory configuration. Clock speeds also differ substantially: the Quadro runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost, while the Vega 3 operates at a 300 MHz base and 1,100 MHz boost—the latter benefiting from the newer process.

# FAQ

Q: Why does the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M score so much higher in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan?

A: The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units versus the Vega 3's 192, along with dedicated GDDR5 memory providing 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 3's system-shared memory architecture and 4 ROPs fundamentally limit its compute throughput, resulting in the 320% and 320.8% deltas in OpenCL and Vulkan respectively.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon Vega 3 more efficient per watt?

A: Yes. The Vega 3 has a 15 W TDP compared to the Quadro M3000M's 75 W, a 5x difference. This efficiency stems from the 12 nm GlobalFoundries process versus the 28 nm TSMC node, and the Vega 3's lower absolute compute resource count. However, the Quadro still delivers roughly 4.5x the FP32 throughput (1.892 TFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS) despite consuming 5x the power.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro M3000M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Vega 3 supports Vulkan 1.3. The Vega 3 additionally supports FP16 computation at 844.8 GFLOPS, which the Quadro cannot do.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro M3000M's average benchmark score of 4,621 places it within 1% of the GeForce GTX 970M, Radeon R5 M320, and Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB. The Vega 3's 4,268 average sits within 1.5% of the GeForce GTX 460M, FirePro W2100, and RTX 4070 GDDR6, with the Quadro K3000M slightly behind.

Q: What does the "System Shared" memory mean for the Vega 3?

A: The Vega 3 has no dedicated VRAM. Its memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all "System Shared" or "System Dependent," meaning performance varies with the host system's RAM configuration. The Quadro M3000M's fixed 4 GB GDDR5 at 160.4 GB/s provides consistent, predictable memory performance.

Q: Why does the Quadro M3000M have more benchmark results listed?

A: The Quadro M3000M was tested across Passmark's DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and compute tests, plus Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan. The Vega 3 only has Geekbench OpenCL, Vulkan, and Metal results. This discrepancy reflects different testing methodologies for discrete mobile GPUs versus integrated graphics processors.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M | AMD Radeon Vega 3 |

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

| Chip | GM204 | Picasso |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 5.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 4,940 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 210 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 823 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 924 MHz | 1,100 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 1,024 | 192 |

| TMUs | 64 | 12 |

| ROPs | 32 | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 29.57 GPixel/s | 4.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 59.14 GTexel/s | 13.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.892 TFLOPS | 422.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | None | 844.8 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | IGP |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2015-08-17 | 2019-11-19 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler-M | GCN 3.0 IGP |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal-M | Vega II IGP |

# Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins decisively in raw graphics and compute performance. Its 320% OpenCL advantage and 320.8% Vulkan lead over the Vega 3 are overwhelming. The Quadro's 1.892 TFLOPS FP32 versus 422.4 GFLOPS makes it suitable for GPU-accelerated workloads, while its dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 at 160.4 GB/s ensures consistent memory performance. The 256-bit memory bus and 32 ROPs provide strong fill rates for traditional rasterization tasks. Its 27th percentile ranking, while modest, still outranks the Vega 3's 25th percentile.

The AMD Radeon Vega 3 wins in efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP versus 75 W makes it far more suitable for power-constrained portable devices. The 12 nm process provides better transistor density—23.5M / mm² versus 13.1M / mm²—and the higher 1,100 MHz boost clock partially compensates for fewer compute units. The Vega 3 also offers FP16 throughput at 844.8 GFLOPS, a capability absent from the Quadro M3000M. Its system-shared memory model eliminates the need for separate VRAM, reducing cost and complexity in integrated designs.

The Quadro M3000M's Passmark results show particular strength in DirectX 9 (98) and G3D (5,543), suggesting solid legacy API performance. The Vega 3's Metal benchmark score of 4,880 indicates competitive performance in Apple's graphics API, though no direct comparison exists since the Quadro lacks Metal results. The Vega 3's later release date (2019 versus 2015) and newer process node suggest better architectural efficiency, but the Quadro's massive resource advantage—5.3x more shading units, 8x more ROPs—overwhelms any efficiency gains.

# The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the superior graphics processor by every measurable compute metric. Its 320% and 320.8% leads in OpenCL and Vulkan respectively, combined with 1.892 TFLOPS FP32 versus 422.4 GFLOPS, make it the unequivocal choice for GPU-intensive workloads. The dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth eliminates the variable performance penalty inherent in the Vega 3's system-shared memory. For anyone requiring consistent, predictable graphics performance in a mobile workstation, the Quadro M3000M is the only rational choice from these two options.

The AMD Radeon Vega 3's case rests entirely on efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP and IGP form factor make it appropriate for ultra-portable systems where battery life and thermal constraints take precedence over raw performance. The 12 nm process and 23.5M / mm² transistor density demonstrate superior manufacturing efficiency, and the FP16 capability at 844.8 GFLOPS could benefit specific compute workloads. The 300 MHz base clock suggests aggressive power management, though the 1,100 MHz boost shows capability when needed.

The benchmark data shows both cards at the bottom of the GPU hierarchy—27th and 25th percentiles respectively. Neither is a high-performance part by modern standards. The Quadro M3000M is end-of-life, as is the Vega 3. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 970M and Radeon R5 M320, while the Vega 3 competes with the GeForce GTX 460M and FirePro W2100. The performance deltas between these rivals are all under 1.5%, indicating a tightly packed low-performance tier.

The verdict depends entirely on the use case. For demanding graphics applications, the Quadro M3000M wins decisively. For power-sensitive, integrated applications where 15 W is the maximum allowable draw, the Vega 3 is the only viable option. The Quadro's 75 W TDP would be prohibitive in such designs, while the Vega 3's performance would be inadequate for professional 3D work. The data cannot recommend the Vega 3 for any performance-critical role, nor the Quadro M3000M for any power-constrained one. The choice is not about which is better, but which constraint—performance or power—matters more.