NVIDIA GeForce MX350 vs AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, Memory, API support. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce MX350
- Videocard is newer: launch date 6 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- Around 50% higher core clock speed: 1354 MHz vs 900 MHz
- Around 58% higher boost clock speed: 1468 MHz vs 930 MHz
- 1578.6x more texture fill rate: 46.98 GTexel/s vs 29.76 GTexel / s
- Around 25% higher pipelines: 640 vs 512
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 3.3x lower typical power consumption: 20 Watt vs 65 Watt
- Around 93% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2807 vs 1457
- Around 50% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4655 vs 3112
- Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 vs 3168
- Around 50% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4655 vs 3112
- Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 vs 3168
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 10 Feb 2020 vs 21 December 2013 |
| Core clock speed | 1354 MHz vs 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1468 MHz vs 930 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 46.98 GTexel/s vs 29.76 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 640 vs 512 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt vs 65 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2807 vs 1457 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4655 vs 3112 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 3168 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 vs 3346 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4655 vs 3112 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 3168 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 vs 3346 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM
- 2.6x more memory clock speed: 4600 MHz vs 1752 MHz (7008 MHz effective)
- Around 63% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 394 vs 241
- 3.3x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 40722 vs 12508
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Memory clock speed | 4600 MHz vs 1752 MHz (7008 MHz effective) |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 394 vs 241 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 40722 vs 12508 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX350
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce MX350 | AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2807 | 1457 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 | 394 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 12508 | 40722 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4655 | 3112 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 3168 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3346 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4655 | 3112 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 3168 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3346 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1247 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce MX350 | AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |
| Code name | GP107 | Cape Verde |
| Launch date | 10 Feb 2020 | 21 December 2013 |
| Place in performance rating | 681 | 601 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1468 MHz | 930 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 1354 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 58.72 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 1.879 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 640 | 512 |
| Pixel fill rate | 23.49 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 46.98 GTexel/s | 29.76 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Transistor count | 3300 million | 1,500 million |
| Floating-point performance | 952.3 gflops | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 73.6 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz (7008 MHz effective) | 4600 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce MX350 with others
NVIDIAGeForce MX350 vs
ATIFireGL V5100
NVIDIAGeForce MX350 vs
ATIRadeon X600 PRO
NVIDIAGeForce MX350 vs
ATIMobility FireGL V5250
NVIDIAGeForce MX350 vs
NVIDIAQuadro K4200
NVIDIAGeForce MX350 vs
AMDRadeon RX 580 (Laptop)
NVIDIAGeForce MX350 vs
AMDRadeon Instinct MI25 MxGPU
