AMD Radeon 610M vs AMD Radeon R7 M350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear split between the two GPUs depending on the workload. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R7 M350 delivers a score of 6991, which is 54.2% higher than the AMD Radeon 610M's 4535. This is a substantial margin, placing the older discrete GPU firmly ahead in compute-oriented OpenCL tasks. Conversely, the AMD Radeon 610M takes the lead in the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 6353 against the R7 M350's 5662, a 10.9% advantage for the newer integrated part.

The overall average benchmark score reinforces this dichotomy. The R7 M350 has an average score of 6327, while the 610M trails at 5444. However, the percentile rankings tell a nuanced story: the R7 M350 sits at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the 610M sits at the 32nd. This means that while the R7 M350 has a higher raw average, both parts are clustered relatively close together in the overall performance distribution.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides further context. The R7 M350's average score of 6327 places it within 0.7% of the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282) and within 0.9% of both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (both at 6270). This indicates that the R7 M350's raw compute performance is competitive with a surprisingly modern set of competitors, though the comparison is purely on the aggregate benchmark metric. The 610M's average of 5444 is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467), 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483), and 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501). It sits 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416).

The head-to-head data shows a 1:1 win split. The R7 M350 wins the OpenCL test outright, and the 610M wins the Vulkan test. The OpenCL victory for the R7 M350 is particularly decisive, with a delta of 54.2%, which is a far larger margin than the 10.9% delta the 610M manages in Vulkan. This suggests that the R7 M350's architecture is more efficient at raw general-purpose compute, while the 610M's newer design excels in the specific Vulkan graphics API workload.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 has the higher average benchmark score at 6327, compared to the AMD Radeon 610M's average of 5444.

Q: Which GPU performs better in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M performs better, scoring 6353 compared to the R7 M350's 5662, a 10.9% advantage.

Q: What is the difference in OpenCL performance between the two?

A: The R7 M350 is significantly ahead in OpenCL, scoring 6991 versus the 610M's 4535, which represents a 54.2% higher score for the R7 M350.

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

A: The R7 M350's average score is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6330) and is 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K620. The 610M's average score is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 but 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M365X.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 has a higher percentile ranking, sitting at the 36th percentile compared to the AMD Radeon 610M's 32nd percentile.

Q: Did either GPU win both benchmark tests?

A: No, the results are split. The R7 M350 won the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the 610M won the Geekbench Vulkan test.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split is between GCN 3.0 and RDNA 2.0. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 is built on the GCN 3.0 architecture using the Meso chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Gem System generation under the R7 M300 family. The AMD Radeon 610M, in contrast, utilizes the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Mendocino chip, manufactured on a much smaller 6 nm process, also at TSMC. It is part of the Navi II IGP generation for Mendocino Mobile.

The R7 M350's chip integrates 1,550 million transistors on a die size of 125 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.4M per mm². The 610M's die is smaller at 100 mm², though its transistor count is not recorded. The R7 M350 is a discrete GPU with a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, while the 610M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a faster PCIe 4.0 x8 interface.

The compute configurations differ markedly. The R7 M350 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The 610M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Notably, the 610M includes 2 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the GCN-based R7 M350. The R7 M350's FP32 throughput is 779.5 GFLOPS, with FP16 performance matching at 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The 610M has a lower FP32 throughput of 486.4 GFLOPS but a much higher FP16 rate of 972.8 GFLOPS, operating at a 2:1 ratio.

The API support also separates the two. The R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and a newer Vulkan 1.4. This gives the 610M access to more modern graphics features, including those tied to DirectX 12 Ultimate. The pixel and texture rates reflect the core counts: the R7 M350 achieves 8.120 GPixel/s and 24.36 GTexel/s, while the 610M achieves 7.600 GPixel/s and 15.20 GTexel/s.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets highlight several key divergences. The process node differs: the R7 M350 uses a 28 nm process, while the 610M uses a 6 nm process. The die size is also different, with the R7 M350 at 125 mm² and the 610M at 100 mm². The R7 M350 has a recorded transistor count of 1,550 million, and a transistor density of 12.4M per mm², whereas these figures are not recorded for the 610M.

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The R7 M350 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz. The 610M has a much higher base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1900 MHz. Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The R7 M350 has 4 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) and a bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s. The 610M uses system shared memory, with its type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent".

The compute unit counts are as follows: the R7 M350 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The 610M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, plus 2 ray tracing cores. The R7 M350's FP32 performance is 779.5 GFLOPS, and its FP16 performance is 779.5 GFLOPS. The 610M's FP32 is 486.4 GFLOPS, with FP16 at 972.8 GFLOPS. The TDP is not recorded for the R7 M350, but the 610M is rated at 15 W. The R7 M350 has no recorded slot width or power connector information, while the 610M is an IGP with no power connectors. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R7 M350 versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 610M. Display outputs are not recorded for the R7 M350, but are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for the 610M.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M350 wins decisively in OpenCL compute workloads. Its score of 6991 is 54.2% higher than the 610M's 4535, indicating a strong advantage in raw parallel processing that OpenCL tests often leverage. This GPU also has a higher average benchmark score (6327 versus 5444) and a higher percentile ranking (36th versus 32nd). Its dedicated 4 GB of DDR3 memory with a fixed 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, while modest, is a discrete memory pool, which can be beneficial for dedicated workloads that do not have to compete with system memory. Its higher TMU and ROP counts (24 and 8, respectively) contribute to a higher texture rate of 24.36 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 8.120 GPixel/s, which are useful for certain fill-rate-bound tasks. For users prioritizing pure OpenCL performance or who need a dedicated memory buffer, the data favors the R7 M350.

The AMD Radeon 610M wins in the Vulkan API benchmark. Its score of 6353 surpasses the R7 M350's 5662 by 10.9%. This suggests that its RDNA 2.0 architecture is more efficient at handling the modern Vulkan graphics workload. Its inclusion of 2 ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 makes it the more feature-forward choice for contemporary graphics APIs. The 610M also has significantly higher clock speeds, with a boost clock of 1900 MHz versus the R7 M350's 1015 MHz. Its FP16 performance is substantially higher at 972.8 GFLOPS, which can be a boon for workloads that utilize half-precision arithmetic. As an IGP with a 15 W TDP, it is designed for low-power portable devices, and its system-shared memory architecture means it can scale with available system RAM, though its bandwidth is system dependent.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload priorities. For users focused on general-purpose compute tasks, specifically those leveraging OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R7 M350 is the superior option. Its 54.2% lead in the OpenCL benchmark is the single largest performance gap recorded between the two parts. Its higher average score of 6327 and higher percentile ranking of 36th also indicate a stronger overall performance profile in the database's aggregate metrics. Users who require a fixed, dedicated memory pool of 4 GB, even with its 64-bit bus limitation, may find the R7 M350's discrete design more predictable for their needs.

For users whose primary concern is modern graphics API performance, the AMD Radeon 610M is the better choice. Its 10.9% victory in the Vulkan benchmark demonstrates its architectural efficiency with contemporary APIs. The presence of ray tracing cores, support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, and a significantly higher boost clock of 1900 MHz position it as the more future-proof part for gaming or graphics applications that utilize these features. Its low 15 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for thin-and-light portable devices where power efficiency is paramount.

In summary, the R7 M350 is the compute-oriented workhorse with a strong OpenCL showing, while the 610M is the modern graphics-oriented part with better Vulkan performance and feature support. The choice depends entirely on whether the primary workload is raw compute (choose the R7 M350) or modern graphics rendering (choose the 610M). Each GPU wins one of the two recorded benchmark tests, and the decision should be guided by which test aligns with the user's intended applications.