AMD Radeon 550X vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between these two mobile graphics solutions. Each card claims one benchmark victory, but the margins are far from symmetrical. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon 550X scores 8,866 points against 8,689 for the NVIDIA GeForce MX350, a 2% advantage that is statistically minor. This is the only metric where AMD pulls ahead, and it does so by a narrow margin that falls within typical run-to-run variance for mobile GPUs.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a completely different story. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 delivers 13,077 points versus 8,970 for the AMD Radeon 550X, a 45.8% lead that is decisive by any measure. This is not a marginal difference; it is a generational gap in API-specific performance. The MX350's Vulkan result is so dominant that it single-handedly lifts its average benchmark score to 10,883, compared to 8,918 for the Radeon 550X, a 22% overall advantage in the database's composite metric.

Contextualizing these averages against the wider GPU landscape reveals where each card sits. The MX350's 10,883 average places it at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon Pro 450 at 10,804 (0.7% slower), the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 at 10,761 (1.1% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER at 11,047 (1.5% faster). The Radeon 550X's 8,918 average places it at the 45th percentile, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 at 8,863 (0.6% slower), the AMD Radeon R9 M265X at 8,851 (0.8% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 at 9,022 (1.2% faster).

The benchmark data indicates that while both cards occupy the lower-middle segment of the GPU hierarchy, the MX350's Vulkan advantage is the single largest differential in any comparison involving these two parts. The OpenCL margin, by contrast, is negligible in practical terms. When the database aggregates these two tests, the NVIDIA card emerges as the clear composite winner, but the distribution of wins matters: AMD takes the compute-style workload, NVIDIA takes the graphics-API workload.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 550X wins in OpenCL compute scenarios. Its 8,866 score reflects a hardware design that handles general-purpose compute tasks efficiently. Users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, such as certain video encoding filters, physics simulations, or productivity tools that leverage GPU compute, should see parity or a slight edge with the AMD card. The 2% delta is small enough that real-world differences will be hard to notice, but the direction of the advantage is consistent with AMD's GCN architecture strengths in raw compute throughput.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 wins decisively in Vulkan graphics workloads. The 45.8% lead translates directly to better frame rates in Vulkan-based games and applications that use this modern graphics API. Vulkan adoption has grown steadily in game engines, and this is where the MX350 separates itself. For gaming, especially titles built on Vulkan or with Vulkan render paths, the MX350 is the substantially faster option. The 13,077 Vulkan score is not merely better; it is in a different performance class entirely.

Beyond these two measured benchmarks, the architectural data supports broader conclusions. The MX350's higher boost clock of 1,468 MHz versus 1,218 MHz for the Radeon 550X, combined with 640 shading units against 512, gives NVIDIA a theoretical peak FP32 throughput of 1.879 TFLOPS versus 1,247.2 GFLOPS for AMD. This 50% raw compute advantage aligns with the Vulkan benchmark results, suggesting that in graphics-heavy scenarios where both cards are fully utilized, NVIDIA maintains a substantial lead. The AMD card counters with double the memory bandwidth: 112.0 GB/s across a 128-bit bus versus 56.06 GB/s across a 64-bit bus. This bandwidth advantage explains the OpenCL result, where memory-intensive workloads can offset the compute deficit.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 uses the GP107S chip based on the Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This chip packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 25.0 million per square millimeter. The Pascal architecture, now at end-of-life, was designed for efficiency and strong graphics performance per watt.

The AMD Radeon 550X uses the Lexa chip based on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This chip contains 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, with a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. GCN 4.0, also known as Polaris, is an older design that AMD repurposed for the RX 500X generation. The predecessor is listed as Polaris, with Vega as the successor, indicating this architecture sits mid-cycle in AMD's roadmap.

The compute configurations differ notably. The MX350 fields 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The Radeon 550X has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Both cards have identical TMU and ROP counts, but NVIDIA's extra 128 shading units provide more parallel compute lanes. The MX350's pixel rate is 23.49 GPixel/s and texture rate is 46.98 GTexel/s, while the Radeon 550X achieves 19.49 GPixel/s and 38.98 GTexel/s respectively.

Memory subsystems diverge significantly. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5, but the MX350 has a 64-bit bus yielding 56.06 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon 550X has a 128-bit bus yielding 112.0 GB/s, exactly double. Memory clocks are effectively identical at 7 Gbps effective, so the bus width alone determines the bandwidth difference. The FP16 capabilities also differ: the MX350 delivers 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), meaning FP16 is heavily de-emphasized, while the Radeon 550X delivers 1,247.2 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), matching its FP32 throughput.

Power and interface specifications separate the two further. The MX350 has a 20 W TDP with no power connectors, while the Radeon 550X has a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, but a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the Radeon 550X uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The AMD card is dual-slot with a 145 mm length and features 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The MX350's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, reflecting its typical integration into thin laptops.

API support shows NVIDIA with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, versus AMD with DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The higher Vulkan version on the NVIDIA side may contribute to its Vulkan benchmark dominance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has an average benchmark score of 10,883, compared to 8,918 for the AMD Radeon 550X.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The MX350 scores 13,077 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 8,970 for the Radeon 550X, giving NVIDIA a 45.8% lead.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the Radeon 550X wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with 8,866 points versus 8,689 for the MX350, a 2% margin.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: The Radeon 550X has 112.0 GB/s bandwidth over a 128-bit bus. The MX350 has 56.06 GB/s over a 64-bit bus. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The MX350 has a 20 W TDP, while the Radeon 550X has a 50 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: What are the shading unit counts?

A: The MX350 has 640 shading units, while the Radeon 550X has 512 shading units.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports a clear recommendation for most users: the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is the stronger overall GPU. Its 45.8% Vulkan advantage is the dominant factor in the comparison, and its composite average score of 10,883 versus 8,918 represents a 22% lead. The MX350 also achieves this with a 20 W TDP, less than half the 50 W TDP of the Radeon 550X, making it the more efficient choice for thin-and-light laptops where thermal and power budgets are constrained.

Users whose workloads are exclusively OpenCL compute might favor the Radeon 550X, given its 2% edge in that specific test. The 112.0 GB/s memory bandwidth could also benefit memory-bound applications that the synthetic benchmark does not fully capture. However, the narrow margin of the OpenCL win does not compensate for the massive Vulkan deficit.

The MX350's 49th percentile ranking versus the 45th percentile for the Radeon 550X confirms its higher standing in the overall GPU hierarchy. For gaming, Vulkan-based applications, or any mixed workload, the MX350 is the superior choice. For specialized OpenCL compute tasks where every percentage point matters and power consumption is less critical, the Radeon 550X has a narrow niche.

The data also indicates the MX350 is the more modern design in practical terms. Its release date of February 9, 2020, comes after the Radeon 550X's March 26, 2019 launch. Both are end-of-life, but the NVIDIA part benefits from a newer architecture generation with higher transistor density and better API support, including Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX350 | AMD Radeon 550X |

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

| Chip | GP107S | Lexa |

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm (Samsung) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

| Transistors | 3,300 million | 2,200 million |

| Die Size | 132 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.0M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1354 MHz | 1082 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1468 MHz | 1218 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 512 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.49 GPixel/s | 19.49 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.98 GTexel/s | 38.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1.879 TFLOPS | 1,247.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64) | 1,247.2 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 20 W | 50 W |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Slot Width | Not specified | Dual-slot |

| Length | Not specified | 145 mm (5.7 inches) |

| Release Date | February 9, 2020 | March 26, 2019 |