AMD Radeon 740M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and consistent advantage for the AMD Radeon 740M across both available benchmark tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon 740M scores 10172 against the MX350's 8689, a margin of 17.1%. The Vulkan test widens the gap slightly: the 740M posts 15568 versus the MX350's 13077, a 19% lead. This means the AMD part wins both head-to-head comparisons, with a total of 2 wins for the Radeon 740M and 0 for the GeForce MX350.

The average benchmark score reinforces this picture. The Radeon 740M holds an average of 12870, while the MX350 averages 10883, a difference of roughly 18%. In percentile terms, the 740M sits at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, while the MX350 lands at the 49th percentile. That four-point gap may seem modest, but it represents the difference between sitting just above the midpoint of the GPU population versus just below it.

The Radeon 740M's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD FirePro W5100 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (0.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (0.3% ahead). It also trails the AMD Radeon RX 580 by only 0.4%. The MX350's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (0.7% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (1.1% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (1.5% behind). The data places the Radeon 740M in slightly faster company overall, while the MX350's closest comparisons are a mix of older workstation and midrange gaming parts.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design eras. The AMD Radeon 740M uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 uses the older Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This process gap is enormous: 4 nm versus 14 nm, and it shows up in the transistor data. The 740M packs 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die, giving a density of 152.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The MX350 has 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, a density of just 25.0 million per square millimeter.

The chip names also reflect different lineages. The 740M is built around the Phoenix2 chip, part of the Navi III IGP generation. The MX350 uses the GP107S chip, part of the GeForce MX (3xx) family. The 740M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), meaning it shares system memory, while the MX350 is a discrete mobile GPU with its own dedicated memory.

The Radeon 740M integrates 4 ray tracing cores, a feature the MX350 completely lacks. The MX350 has no ray tracing hardware whatsoever. In terms of raw compute units, the MX350 has more shading units at 640 versus 256, and more texture mapping units at 32 versus 16, plus more ROPs at 16 versus 8. Yet the Radeon 740M still achieves higher floating point throughput: 2.867 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1.879 TFLOPS for the MX350. The efficiency of the RDNA 3.0 architecture is evident here, as fewer shading units still produce more raw compute.

The FP16 comparison is even more stark. The 740M delivers 2.867 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32. The MX350 manages only 29.36 GFLOPS FP16, at a 1:64 ratio. This means the Radeon 740M can handle half-precision workloads more than 97 times faster than the MX350, a massive advantage for any application that uses FP16 math.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 740M wins in every measured benchmark, so the use-case split favors it almost everywhere. For general compute workloads, the OpenCL score of 10172 versus 8689 suggests the 740M handles OpenCL-based applications with noticeably more headroom. For gaming and graphics APIs, the Vulkan score of 15568 versus 13077 shows a similar advantage, and the presence of ray tracing cores gives the 740M access to features the MX350 cannot offer at all.

The MX350 does have some theoretical advantages in specific areas. Its dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth means it does not contend with system memory for bandwidth. The 740M's memory bandwidth is listed as system dependent, which means its actual performance can vary based on the host platform's memory configuration. In a laptop with slow or single-channel RAM, the 740M's memory performance could be a limiting factor. However, the benchmark data as recorded does not reflect such a scenario, and the 740M still wins both tests outright.

The MX350 also has a lower TDP at 20 W versus 45 W for the 740M. This could matter in thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is limited. The 740M's higher power draw suggests it needs a more robust cooling solution. For users prioritizing battery life and low heat output, the MX350's efficiency profile might be appealing, even if its performance is lower.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 740M averages 12870, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 averages 10883.

Q: How much faster is the Radeon 740M in Vulkan?

A: The Radeon 740M scores 15568 versus 13077 for the MX350, a 19% advantage.

Q: Does the GeForce MX350 support ray tracing?

A: No, the MX350 has no ray tracing cores. The Radeon 740M includes 4 ray tracing cores.

Q: Which GPU uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Radeon 740M is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the MX350 uses a 14 nm process at Samsung.

Q: How do the transistors per square millimeter compare?

A: The Radeon 740M has a density of 152.6 million transistors per square millimeter, versus 25.0 million for the MX350.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 throughput?

A: The Radeon 740M delivers 2.867 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 1.879 TFLOPS for the MX350.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every specification field. The Radeon 740M uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the MX350 uses Pascal on a 14 nm Samsung process. The 740M has 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die, while the MX350 has 3,300 million on a 132 mm² die. Transistor density is 152.6M per square millimeter for the 740M versus 25.0M for the MX350.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The 740M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2800 MHz. The MX350 has a base of 1354 MHz and a boost of 1468 MHz. The 740M's boost clock is nearly double the MX350's, though its base clock is lower.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The 740M uses system shared memory, with the type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The MX350 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, with 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth.

Compute unit counts favor the MX350 in raw numbers: 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs versus 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the 740M. However, the 740M has 4 ray tracing cores, which the MX350 lacks entirely. The 740M's pixel rate is 22.40 GPixel/s and texture rate is 44.80 GTexel/s. The MX350's pixel rate is 23.49 GPixel/s and texture rate is 46.98 GTexel/s, slightly higher in both.

FP32 throughput favors the 740M at 2.867 TFLOPS versus 1.879 TFLOPS. FP16 is a landslide: 2.867 TFLOPS for the 740M versus 29.36 GFLOPS for the MX350. TDP also differs, with the 740M rated at 45 W and the MX350 at 20 W.

The bus interface differs as well. The 740M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. The 740M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). OpenGL support is identical at 4.6, and Vulkan support is also identical at 1.4. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for the 740M and portable device dependent for the MX350.

Production status differs: the 740M is active, while the MX350 is end-of-life. The 740M released on 2024-01-30, while the MX350 released on 2020-02-09. The 740M's predecessor is Navi II IGP and its successor is Navi III IGP. The MX350 has no recorded predecessor or successor.

The Verdict

The data points overwhelmingly toward the AMD Radeon 740M as the stronger GPU. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average score, sits at a higher percentile, and offers features the MX350 cannot match, specifically ray tracing cores and vastly superior FP16 performance. The 740M's transistor density advantage, at 152.6 million per square millimeter versus 25.0 million, reflects a much more modern design and explains how it achieves higher performance despite fewer shading units.

The MX350's case rests on efficiency rather than raw performance. Its 20 W TDP is less than half the 740M's 45 W, which could translate to longer battery life and less heat in portable devices. Its dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with fixed 56.06 GB/s bandwidth means memory performance is predictable and not dependent on the host platform. In a constrained system where memory bandwidth is scarce, the MX350's dedicated memory architecture might be a safer bet.

But the recorded benchmarks do not show any scenario where the MX350 wins. Its nearest rival list includes the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (0.7% ahead) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (1.1% ahead), while the 740M keeps company with parts like the GeForce GTX 590 and Radeon RX 580, which are far more powerful desktop-class GPUs. The MX350's best result is being 1.5% behind the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER, while the 740M is only 0.4% behind the RX 580.

For a user choosing between these two, the Radeon 740M is the stronger performer in every measured test. The MX350's end-of-life status, its lack of ray tracing, and its massive FP16 deficit make it difficult to recommend unless the 20 W power draw is an absolute requirement. The 740M offers modern features, higher compute throughput, and a much more advanced manufacturing process, all of which show up clearly in the benchmark data.