NVIDIA GeForce MX350 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 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) 7 month(s) later
- Around 4% higher core clock speed: 1354 MHz vs 1296 MHz
- 974.7x more texture fill rate: 46.98 GTexel/s vs 48.2 billion / sec
- 2.7x more pipelines: 640 vs 240
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 65 nm
- 11.8x lower typical power consumption: 20 Watt vs 236 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 58% higher memory clock speed: 1752 MHz (7008 MHz effective) vs 1107 MHz
- 2.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2806 vs 1299
- 3.9x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 241 vs 62
- Around 38% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 vs 2697
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 vs 3325
- Around 38% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 vs 2697
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 vs 3325
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 10 Feb 2020 vs 16 June 2008 |
Core clock speed | 1354 MHz vs 1296 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 46.98 GTexel/s vs 48.2 billion / sec |
Pipelines | 640 vs 240 |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 65 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt vs 236 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz (7008 MHz effective) vs 1107 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2806 vs 1299 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 vs 62 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 2697 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 vs 3325 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 2697 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 vs 3325 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
- Around 71% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 21396 vs 12508
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 21396 vs 12508 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX350
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
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 GTX 280 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2806 | 1299 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 | 62 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 12508 | 21396 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4655 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 2697 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3325 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4655 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 2697 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3325 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1247 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce MX350 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Pascal | Tesla 2.0 |
Code name | GP107 | GT200 |
Launch date | 10 Feb 2020 | 16 June 2008 |
Place in performance rating | 681 | 1051 |
Type | Laptop | Desktop |
Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | |
Price now | $522.78 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 2.98 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1468 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 1354 MHz | 1296 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 | 240 |
Pixel fill rate | 23.49 GPixel/s | |
Texture fill rate | 46.98 GTexel/s | 48.2 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt | 236 Watt |
Transistor count | 3300 million | 1,400 million |
CUDA cores | 240 | |
Floating-point performance | 622.1 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 | 6-pin & 8-pin |
Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | |
SLI options | 2-way3-way | |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 141.7 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 64 bit | 512 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz (7008 MHz effective) | 1107 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
API support |
||
DirectX | 10.0 | |
OpenGL | 2.1 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
SLI |