AMD Radeon R7 250 vs AMD Radeon R7 350 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 250 and the AMD Radeon R7 350 are two entries from different generations of AMD’s discrete GPU lineup, both built on the same Cape Verde chip and GCN 1.0 architecture. While they share a common foundation, the benchmark data and specifications reveal that the R7 350 is the more capable card, primarily due to its faster memory subsystem and higher effective clock speeds. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, architectural similarities, and specification differences to determine which card holds up better in a database of recorded performance metrics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct benchmark comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it clearly favors the newer AMD Radeon R7 350. The R7 350 scores 7792 points, while the R7 250 trails with a score of 7557 points. This translates to a 3% delta, with the R7 350 winning this specific test. While a 3% margin might seem modest, it is a consistent indicator of the performance hierarchy between the two cards, as the R7 350 also demonstrates its superiority in other benchmark categories where both have entries.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the R7 350 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7057, which the R7 250 lacks entirely. This additional data point shows that the R7 350 can handle Vulkan workloads, a feature that is completely absent from the R7 250's recorded profile. In the OpenCL test, the R7 350’s victory is not an outlier; it aligns with the card’s overall positioning. When examining the average benchmark score, the R7 250 achieves 7557, while the R7 350’s average dips to 7425, dragged down by its lower Vulkan score.

The nearest rival data provides further context. The R7 250’s closest competitor is the Intel Arc A310, which scores 7550, a mere 0.1% difference. This places the R7 250 in a tight cluster with other entry-level GPUs. The R7 350, on the other hand, is 1.7% behind the same Intel Arc A310, showing that while it wins against its older sibling, it is not a significant leap forward in absolute terms. The data suggests that the R7 350’s advantage over the R7 250 is real but narrow, and both cards occupy a similar performance tier, with the R7 350 holding a slight edge in compute-heavy tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 350 is faster, scoring 7792 compared to the R7 250’s 7557. This represents a 3% performance advantage for the R7 350.

Q: Does the R7 350 have any benchmark results that the R7 250 does not?

A: Yes, the R7 350 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7057. The R7 250 has no recorded Vulkan benchmark result in the data.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The R7 250 has an average benchmark score of 7557, while the R7 350 has an average of 7425. The R7 350’s average is lower because its Vulkan score is significantly lower than its OpenCL score.

Q: How does each card compare to the Intel Arc A310?

A: The R7 250 is 0.1% faster than the Intel Arc A310, while the R7 350 is 1.7% slower than the same rival card.

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

A: The R7 250 has a percentile rank of 41, while the R7 350 has a percentile rank of 40. Despite the R7 350 winning the head-to-head, the R7 250 is ranked slightly higher in the overall database.

Q: Do both cards share the same memory bus width?

A: Yes, both the R7 250 and the R7 350 use a 128-bit memory bus, but they differ in memory type and size, which is covered in the specification section.

Architecture Differences

Despite being from different generations, both the AMD Radeon R7 250 and the AMD Radeon R7 350 are architecturally identical at their core. They both utilize the Cape Verde chip and are built on the GCN 1.0 architecture. The manufacturing process is the same for both: a 28 nm node at TSMC, with an identical transistor count of 1,500 million and a die size of 123 mm². This results in the same transistor density of 12.2M / mm².

The fundamental compute resources are also unchanged. Both cards feature 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). They also lack dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores. The API support is also identical, with both offering DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The key architectural differences are not in the silicon itself, but in how the memory is configured and the clock speeds at which the components operate.

The R7 350 belongs to the Pirate Islands generation, succeeding the Volcanic Islands generation of the R7 250. This generational shift is primarily a marketing and feature-set update rather than a fundamental redesign. The data shows that the R7 350’s performance gains are derived from its enhanced memory subsystem, not from a change in the core architecture. The processing cores are essentially the same, but the R7 350 feeds them data at a much higher rate.

Specification Differences

While the core architecture is shared, the specification sheets reveal significant differences that explain the performance gap. The most critical difference lies in the memory configuration. The R7 250 comes equipped with 1024 MB of DDR3 memory, while the R7 350 doubles that to 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. This is a major upgrade, as the memory type alone changes the bandwidth characteristics. The R7 250’s memory runs at 900 MHz with an effective speed of 1800 Mbps, yielding a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The R7 350’s memory operates at 1125 MHz with an effective speed of 4.5 Gbps, resulting in a much higher bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s. This 2.5x increase in memory bandwidth is the primary driver of the R7 350’s superior benchmark performance.

Clock speeds and derived performance metrics also differ. The R7 250 achieves a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s, with an FP32 performance of 947.2 GFLOPS. The R7 350, despite having the same core counts, has lower rates: 12.80 GPixel/s, 25.60 GTexel/s, and 819.2 GFLOPS. This is an interesting inversion where the R7 250 has higher raw compute rates, yet the R7 350 wins in the OpenCL benchmark. This strongly suggests that the R7 250’s compute potential is bottlenecked by its slow DDR3 memory, while the R7 350’s faster GDDR5 allows its cores to be fed more efficiently.

Other physical specifications remain constant. Both cards have a TDP of 55 W, are single-slot designs, require no power connectors, and have a suggested PSU of 250 W. They also share the same PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, identical display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), and the same physical dimensions of 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length. The release dates differ, with the R7 250 launching in October 2013 and the R7 350 in July 2016, but their production status is the same: end-of-life.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the AMD Radeon R7 350 is the superior card for raw compute performance. Its 3% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test and the inclusion of a Vulkan score give it a clear edge over the R7 250. The primary reason is its memory subsystem: the R7 350’s 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth is a massive upgrade over the R7 250’s 1 GB of DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s. Even though the R7 250 has higher theoretical FP32, pixel, and texture rates, the data shows that the R7 350 is the better performer in practice, indicating that the R7 250 is likely starved for memory bandwidth.

Users should pick the AMD Radeon R7 350 if they prioritize faster memory and want access to Vulkan API performance. The doubled memory capacity also makes it a more future-proof option for textures and data-heavy workloads. The R7 250, despite its higher raw compute rates, is hampered by its slower memory and should be considered a weaker alternative. While the R7 250 has a slightly higher percentile ranking (41 vs 40) and a higher average score due to the R7 350’s low Vulkan result, the head-to-head winner is unequivocal. For anyone choosing between these two, the R7 350 is the better choice, as its benchmark victory and superior memory configuration make it the more effective card in real-world tasks.