AMD Radeon 760M vs AMD Radeon R7 M350 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M350 and AMD Radeon 760M are two GPUs separated by nearly a decade of architecture and process technology, and the benchmark data is unambiguous: the Radeon 760M wins every head-to-head test by a wide margin, making it the only rational choice for any modern workload. The R7 M350, an end-of-life 2015 part built on GCN 3.0, trails so far behind in raw compute that its only conceivable role is legacy system support. The 760M, an active RDNA 3.0 integrated processor, delivers roughly three to five times the performance in the shared tests, and its broader benchmark suite shows competence across DirectX 9 through 12, compute, and 2D tasks. The verdict is simple: the 760M is the pick for anyone needing current-gen performance; the R7 M350 should only be considered when hardware compatibility with older systems is non-negotiable.

The Verdict

The data points to a landslide. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon 760M scores 20,255 against the R7 M350’s 6,991, a delta of -65.5% for the older part. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin is even starker: 30,336 versus 5,662, a -81.3% gap. The R7 M350 wins zero head-to-head benchmarks; the 760M wins both. Average benchmark scores reinforce this: the 760M sits at 6,019, while the M350 averages 6,327 — but that average is misleading because it includes only two tests for the M350, whereas the 760M has ten diverse results, including PassMark G3D at 5,310 and PassMark GPU Compute at 2,840. The M350’s nearest rivals (AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 at 6,330 and NVIDIA Quadro K620 at 6,282) are within 0.7% of its average, meaning it clusters with low-end workstation parts from its era. The 760M’s nearest rivals (AMD Radeon RX 6400 at 6,001 and NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6,049) are similarly close, but the 760M pulls ahead of the P2000 by -0.5%. Ultimately, the 760M is a 4 nm, 512-shader part with 8 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support; the M350 is a 28 nm, 384-shader part with no ray tracing and DirectX 12 (12_0) only. For gaming, compute, or modern API support, the 760M is the sole recommendation. The M350 is only defensible in a system that cannot accept an IGP or where legacy driver stacks are required.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Radeon 760M, with FP32 of 5.323 TFLOPS versus the R7 M350’s 779.5 GFLOPS. This is a 6.8x difference in theoretical peak, and the real-world Geekbench OpenCL score confirms it: 20,255 vs 6,991.

Q: Can the R7 M350 handle modern DirectX 12 titles?

A: Technically yes, as it supports DirectX 12 (12_0), but its feature set is limited. The 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing and other advanced features. The M350’s Vulkan support is version 1.2.170, while the 760M runs Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The M350 has 4 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The 760M uses system shared memory with bus width and bandwidth labeled as "System Shared" and "System Dependent," respectively. The 760M’s performance is tied to system RAM speed, whereas the M350 has fixed dedicated memory.

Q: Is the Radeon 760M suitable for ray tracing?

A: It has 8 ray tracing cores (RT cores), and its architecture is RDNA 3.0, which supports ray tracing. The M350 has no RT cores. However, the 760M’s PassMark DirectX 12 score is only 25, so ray tracing workloads may still be limited in practice.

Q: Which GPU is more power efficient?

A: The 760M has a TDP of 15 W and is an IGP, requiring no power connectors. The M350 has no TDP listed in the data, but it is a discrete mobile part from 2015 on a 28 nm process. The 760M’s 4 nm process node and 15 W TDP indicate significantly lower power draw per unit of performance.

Q: What is the production status of each?

A: The R7 M350 is end-of-life, released on 2015-05-04. The Radeon 760M is active, released on 2024-01-30. The 760M’s successor is listed as null, while the M350’s successor is Polaris Mobile.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share a manufacturer but little else. The R7 M350 is built on the Meso chip using GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. Its generation is listed as "Gem System (R7 M300)," with a predecessor of Solar System and a successor of Polaris Mobile. The 760M, by contrast, uses the Phoenix chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, which is a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter — over 11 times denser than the M350. The 760M’s generation is "Navi III IGP (Phoenix)," with a predecessor of Navi II IGP and no listed successor. The architectural jump from GCN 3.0 to RDNA 3.0 brings fundamental changes: the 760M has 8 RT cores for ray tracing, while the M350 has none. The 760M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the M350 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The 760M is an IGP with no power connectors and a 15 W TDP, while the M350’s power characteristics are unlisted. The bus interface differs as well: the M350 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, and the 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets diverge on nearly every field. The R7 M350 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The 760M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Clock speeds tell a story of their own: the M350 runs at a base of 1000 MHz and boost of 1015 MHz, while the 760M starts at 800 MHz base but boosts to 2599 MHz — a 2.56x higher boost clock. Memory is entirely different: the M350 has 4 GB of DDR3 with a 64-bit bus and 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the 760M uses system shared memory with type, bus width, and bandwidth all marked as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." Pixel and texture rates reflect the 760M’s dominance: 41.58 GPixel/s and 83.17 GTexel/s versus the M350’s 8.120 GPixel/s and 24.36 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 5.323 TFLOPS for the 760M against 779.5 GFLOPS for the M350, and FP16 is identical at 1:1 ratios for both. The 760M lists a 15 W TDP, slot width of IGP, and no power connectors, while the M350 has none of these fields populated. Display outputs are "Motherboard Dependent" for the 760M and unlisted for the M350. Process node is 4 nm versus 28 nm, and transistor count is 25,390 million versus 1,550 million.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two benchmark tests are shared between the two GPUs, and the Radeon 760M wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 760M scores 20,255 while the M350 scores 6,991. The delta percentage is -65.5%, meaning the M350’s score is 65.5% lower than the 760M’s. This is not a marginal difference; it is a generational chasm. Translating to real terms, the 760M delivers roughly 2.9 times the OpenCL performance of the M350. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further. The 760M posts 30,336, and the M350 manages only 5,662, a delta of -81.3%. The 760M’s Vulkan score is 5.4 times higher. These two wins give the 760M a 2-0 record in head-to-head matchups. The M350’s best showing is its OpenCL score, which puts it in the same neighborhood as its nearest rival AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6,330, delta 0%) and NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6,282, delta 0.7%). The 760M’s OpenCL result, by contrast, aligns it with AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6,001, delta 0.3%) and NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6,049, delta -0.5%), but its Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,336 is a standout that none of its nearest rivals can match in that specific test. The M350’s average benchmark score of 6,327 is actually higher than the 760M’s 6,019, but only because the M350’s average is based on just two high-scoring relative results, while the 760M’s average is dragged down by low PassMark DirectX scores (19 for DX10, 52 for DX11, 25 for DX12, 65 for DX9) that the M350 never took.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 760M wins in every measurable category from the data. It dominates compute: its Geekbench OpenCL score is 20,255 versus 6,991, and its FP32 throughput is 5.323 TFLOPS. It dominates graphics API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and 8 ray tracing cores give it a feature set the M350 cannot approach. It wins on process technology: 4 nm versus 28 nm, and a transistor density of 142.6M/mm² versus 12.4M/mm². It wins on pixel and texture rates: 41.58 GPixel/s and 83.17 GTexel/s versus 8.120 GPixel/s and 24.36 GTexel/s. It wins on memory flexibility, using system shared memory that can scale with the host platform, though this is also a potential weakness if system RAM is slow. The 760M’s PassMark scores provide a broader picture: G3D at 5,310, GPU Compute at 2,840, and G2D at 890, none of which the M350 can contest. The M350’s only theoretical advantage is its dedicated 4 GB DDR3 memory, which offers fixed bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s regardless of system configuration, and its lower shading unit count (384) means it draws less power per clock, though no TDP is listed to confirm. The M350’s nearest rival comparisons show it sits alongside professional workstation cards like the Quadro K620, which is appropriate for 2015-era CAD or legacy OpenGL workloads. The 760M, with its 15 W TDP and IGP form factor, is built for modern ultraportable laptops, where it can handle light gaming, media encoding, and compute tasks. In any scenario where performance, API support, or longevity matters, the 760M is the only choice. The M350 is strictly for legacy systems where the newer part cannot be installed due to socket, driver, or motherboard constraints.