AMD Radeon HD 8850M vs AMD Radeon R7 350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between these two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and it produces a narrow but decisive result. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7,792, while the AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7,447. That puts the R7 350 ahead by 4.4% in compute performance — a meaningful edge for a card with fewer shading units on paper.

Context from the nearest-rival data sharpens the picture. The HD 8850M’s average score of 7,447 sits within 0.1% of the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441) and 0.3% of the R7 350 (7,425) — though the head-to-head test uses the R7 350’s higher OpenCL result. The R7 350 trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 by 0.6% in average score, while the HD 8850M trails the same card by 0.3%. Both AMD parts land in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier despite the R7 350’s individual benchmark win.

The deltaPct values in the head-to-head test tell the story: the R7 350 wins 1 out of 1 benchmarks, with a -4.4% deltaPct relative to the HD 8850M (negative indicates the HD 8850M is behind). That 4.4% gap is the single largest margin among any of the nearest rivals — the HD 8850M’s closest competitor, the UHD Graphics 750, is only 0.1% away. In practical terms, the R7 350’s OpenCL advantage is modest but consistent, and it does not translate into a different performance class.

The Vulkan result belongs exclusively to the R7 350, which scores 7,057 in Geekbench Vulkan. No comparable Vulkan score exists for the HD 8850M in the data, so cross-card comparison in that API is impossible. However, the R7 350’s Vulkan score is notably lower than its own OpenCL score — a 9.4% drop — suggesting API-specific scaling that favors OpenCL on this architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the direct head-to-head benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 350 wins the sole Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 7,792 against the HD 8850M’s 7,447, a 4.4% advantage.

Q: How close are these two cards in average benchmark scores?

A: The HD 8850M has an average benchmark score of 7,447, while the R7 350 averages 7,425. The HD 8850M is actually 0.3% ahead in average score, despite losing the individual OpenCL test.

Q: Do these cards compete with any integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 averages 7,441 — within 0.1% of the HD 8850M and 0.2% of the R7 350. Both AMD cards effectively match that integrated solution in compute performance.

Q: What is the R7 350’s Vulkan performance compared to its OpenCL performance?

A: The R7 350 scores 7,057 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 9.4% lower than its 7,792 OpenCL score. No Vulkan score exists for the HD 8850M.

Q: How do these cards compare to a modern discrete GPU like the GTX 1650?

A: The HD 8850M trails the GTX 1650 by 0.3%, and the R7 350 trails by 0.6% in average scores. Both are remarkably close to that card in compute benchmarks, though the GTX 1650 still edges them out.

Q: Are these cards in the same performance percentile?

A: Both the HD 8850M and R7 350 sit at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, confirming they are statistically equivalent in overall standing.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same GCN 1.0 architecture and are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process node, but they use different physical chips. The HD 8850M uses the Venus chip, while the R7 350 uses Cape Verde. Despite the different names, both chips contain 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding an identical transistor density of 12.2M per mm². This means the fundamental silicon is essentially the same, just binned or configured differently.

The shading engine differs significantly. The HD 8850M packs 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). The R7 350 reduces shading units to 512 and TMUs to 32, while keeping 16 ROPs. That is a 20% reduction in shader count and a 20% reduction in texture units for the R7 350 — yet the R7 350 still manages higher raw throughput in several metrics.

Clock behavior is another divergence. The HD 8850M has explicit base and boost clocks of 575 MHz and 625 MHz, respectively. The R7 350 lists no base or boost clock at all in the data — only a memory clock of 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). The HD 8850M’s memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). This suggests the R7 350 relies on a fixed or differently managed clock scheme, while the HD 8850M has a defined boost range.

The memory subsystem is nearly identical: both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. However, the R7 350’s higher memory clock yields 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus the HD 8850M’s 64.00 GB/s — a 12.5% advantage in memory bandwidth for the R7 350. This partially compensates for its lower shader count in bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge in several measurable specifications. The HD 8850M has 640 shading units versus 512 on the R7 350, and 40 TMUs versus 32. Both have 16 ROPs. Pixel rate favors the R7 350 at 12.80 GPixel/s against 10.00 GPixel/s — a 28% advantage. Texture rate is closer: 25.60 GTexel/s for the R7 350 versus 25.00 GTexel/s for the HD 8850M, a 2.4% edge. FP32 compute is nearly identical, with the R7 350 at 819.2 GFLOPS and the HD 8850M at 800.0 GFLOPS.

Memory bandwidth differs as noted: 72.00 GB/s for the R7 350 versus 64.00 GB/s for the HD 8850M. The R7 350 also carries a defined 55 W TDP, while the HD 8850M has no TDP listed. The R7 350 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU, measuring 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length. The HD 8850M has no physical dimensions or power specifications listed — reflecting its mobile-oriented design.

Display outputs exist only for the R7 350: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The HD 8850M lists no display outputs. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 and support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Release dates differ by over three years: the HD 8850M launched in March 2013, while the R7 350 came in July 2016. Both are end-of-life, with the HD 8850M succeeding “London” and preceding “Gem System,” while the R7 350 succeeds “Volcanic Islands” and precedes “Arctic Islands.”

The Verdict

The data points to a near-tie with a slight edge for the AMD Radeon R7 350 in raw compute. The R7 350 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, posting a 4.4% higher OpenCL score than the HD 8850M. It also delivers superior pixel rate (12.80 vs 10.00 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (25.60 vs 25.00 GTexel/s), more memory bandwidth (72.00 vs 64.00 GB/s), and higher FP32 throughput (819.2 vs 800.0 GFLOPS). For anyone choosing purely on benchmark performance, the R7 350 is the stronger card.

However, the HD 8850M has its own arguments. Its average benchmark score (7,447) is actually 0.3% higher than the R7 350’s average (7,425), indicating that the R7 350’s OpenCL win does not consistently translate across all workloads. The HD 8850M also has more shading units (640 vs 512) and more TMUs (40 vs 32), which could favor compute tasks that scale with shader count rather than memory bandwidth. Its lower memory clock is offset by the same 128-bit bus and 2 GB GDDR5 capacity.

The 40th percentile standing for both cards confirms they are equivalent in overall GPU hierarchy. The R7 350’s advantage is real but narrow — within the noise of typical benchmark variance. The HD 8850M is the better choice for users who prioritize shader throughput or who need a mobile-oriented part with defined boost clocks. The R7 350 is the better pick for desktop users who want a single-slot, low-power card with no external power connectors and a 55 W TDP, plus the benefit of display outputs and a 250 W suggested PSU.

Given that the R7 350 wins the head-to-head benchmark, offers higher bandwidth and pixel throughput, and adds a Vulkan score (7,057) that the HD 8850M cannot match, the data favors the R7 350 for general compute and gaming workloads. The HD 8850M remains competitive, but its only measurable wins are in shader count, TMU count, and average score — the latter by a razor-thin 0.3%. For most users, the R7 350’s combination of newer release date, defined power envelope, and superior bandwidth makes it the more compelling option.