NVIDIA GeForce MX350 vs NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, Memory, API support, Technologies. 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 11 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- 1398.2x more texture fill rate: 46.98 GTexel/s vs 33.6 billion / sec
- 5.7x more pipelines: 640 vs 112
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 65 nm
- 5.3x lower typical power consumption: 20 Watt vs 105 Watt
- 4x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 512 MB
- Around 95% higher memory clock speed: 1752 MHz (7008 MHz effective) vs 900 MHz
- 6.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2807 vs 454
- 4.2x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 235 vs 56
- Around 31% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 vs 2845
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 vs 3304
- Around 31% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 vs 2845
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 vs 3304
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 10 Feb 2020 vs 21 July 2008 |
| Texture fill rate | 46.98 GTexel/s vs 33.6 billion / sec |
| Pipelines | 640 vs 112 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt vs 105 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz (7008 MHz effective) vs 900 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2807 vs 454 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 235 vs 56 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 2845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 vs 3304 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 2845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 vs 3304 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
- Around 11% higher core clock speed: 1500 MHz vs 1354 MHz
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz vs 1354 MHz |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX350
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce MX350 | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2807 | 454 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 235 | 56 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 13562 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4655 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 2845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3304 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4655 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 2845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3304 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1247 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce MX350 | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Tesla |
| Code name | GP107 | G92 |
| Launch date | 10 Feb 2020 | 21 July 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 654 | 1063 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $160 | |
| Price now | $103.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 8.86 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1468 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1354 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 65 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 | 112 |
| Pixel fill rate | 23.49 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 46.98 GTexel/s | 33.6 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt | 105 Watt |
| Transistor count | 3300 million | 754 million |
| CUDA cores | 112 | |
| Floating-point performance | 336.0 gflops | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, HDTVDual Link DVI |
| Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |
| Length | 9" (22.9 cm) | |
| SLI options | 2-way | |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 57.6 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz (7008 MHz effective) | 900 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 10.0 | |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce MX350 with others
NVIDIAGeForce MX350 vs
ATIRadeon X800 XT
NVIDIAGeForce MX350 vs
ATIRadeon X800 XL
NVIDIAGeForce MX350 vs
NVIDIAGeForce Go 7900 GTX
NVIDIAGeForce MX350 vs
AMDFirePro W6150M
NVIDIAGeForce MX350 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q
NVIDIAGeForce MX350 vs
IntelIris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)
