AMD Radeon R7 350 vs AMD Radeon R7 M350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R7 350 wins both recorded head-to-head tests against the AMD Radeon R7 M350. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R7 350 scores 7792 versus 6991 for the R7 M350, a lead of 11.5%. The gap widens considerably in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the R7 350 posts 7057 against 5662, an advantage of 24.6%. These are not marginal differences; the Vulkan result in particular shows a decisive performance tier separation.

Looking at the broader database context, the R7 350's average benchmark score is 7425, placing it at the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are tightly clustered: the Intel UHD Graphics 750 averages 7441 (0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon HD 8850M averages 7447 (0.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 averages 7472 (0.6% behind), and the Intel Arc A310 averages 7550 (1.7% ahead). The R7 350 essentially sits in a crowded pack where tiny percentage swings separate competitors, yet it still edges out several of them on average.

The R7 M350, by contrast, averages 6327, placing it at the 36th percentile. Its nearest rivals tell a different story: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 matches it exactly at 6330 (0% delta), while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 trails slightly at 6282 (0.7% behind). Interestingly, both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 also appear in its rival list at 6270, each 0.9% behind. The R7 M350's average score sits 17.3% below the R7 350's average, a substantial chasm in raw compute output.

The OpenCL delta of 11.5% reflects the R7 350's higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth advantages. The Vulkan delta of 24.6% is more pronounced, suggesting that the newer GCN 3.0 architecture in the R7 M350 does not translate into superior driver-level performance under Vulkan. The recorded data shows the R7 350 winning both tests, so any architectural advantages of the R7 M350 do not materialize into benchmark victories.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share a foundry and process node: both are built by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The R7 350 uses the Cape Verde chip under the GCN 1.0 architecture, while the R7 M350 uses the Meso chip under GCN 3.0. This is a fundamental divergence: GCN 1.0 is the original Graphics Core Next design, whereas GCN 3.0 introduced refinements in compute and geometry processing. Despite the newer architecture, the R7 M350 does not outperform its older counterpart in the recorded benchmarks.

Transistor counts are close: the R7 350 packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the R7 M350 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical, with the R7 350 at 12.2M per mm² and the R7 M350 at 12.4M per mm². The R7 M350's slightly larger die and higher transistor count yield no measurable performance benefit in the database.

The compute configurations differ significantly. The R7 350 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The R7 M350 features 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The R7 350 thus has 33% more shading units, 33% more TMUs, and double the ROP count. These structural differences explain the R7 350's higher pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s versus 8.120 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 25.60 GTexel/s versus 24.36 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute figures reinforce the gap: 819.2 GFLOPS for the R7 350 versus 779.5 GFLOPS for the R7 M350. Notably, the R7 M350 offers FP16 at 779.5 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the R7 350 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory subsystems diverge sharply. The R7 350 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth at a memory clock of 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). The R7 M350 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 16.00 GB/s at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The R7 350's bandwidth is 4.5 times higher, a decisive factor in memory-intensive workloads. The R7 M350 does offer double the memory capacity, but the DDR3 type and narrow bus severely constrain its throughput.

Clock behavior also differs. The R7 M350 has a recorded base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz. The R7 350 has no base or boost clock recorded in the database, though its fixed memory clock is higher. The R7 350 draws 55 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the R7 M350 has no TDP, power connector, or PSU data recorded. The R7 350 is a single-slot card with no power connectors required, measuring 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length. The R7 M350 has no dimensions recorded.

API support reveals another difference: the R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 M350's higher DirectX feature level does not translate into a benchmark win in the recorded tests. The R7 350 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the R7 M350 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, halving the available bus bandwidth. The R7 350 also has display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), while the R7 M350 has none recorded.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon R7 350 for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a 17.3% higher average score, and delivers more than four times the memory bandwidth. Its higher shading unit count, double ROP count, and greater texture rate all point to superior rasterization and compute throughput. The R7 350's GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus is a decisive advantage over the R7 M350's DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, particularly in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios.

The R7 M350 is not without its own merits. It offers 4 GB of memory, double the R7 350's 2 GB, which matters for workloads that require larger framebuffers or datasets. Its GCN 3.0 architecture provides DirectX 12 (12_0) support, a higher feature level than the R7 350's DirectX 12 (11_1). It also has a recorded base and boost clock, giving it a defined operating range. However, none of these advantages appear in the benchmark scores.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life parts, the R7 350 is the stronger performer in every recorded test. The R7 M350's larger memory pool might suit specific use cases, but the bandwidth penalty is severe. The R7 350's 55 W TDP and single-slot design make it an accessible option for compact builds, while the R7 M350's power characteristics are unrecorded. Based strictly on the database, the R7 350 is the pick for performance, and the R7 M350 is only relevant when capacity outweighs throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins more benchmarks in the head-to-head tests?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 350 wins both recorded head-to-head tests. It leads by 11.5% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 24.6% in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The R7 350 has an average benchmark score of 7425, while the R7 M350 averages 6327. This places the R7 350 at the 40th percentile of all GPUs and the R7 M350 at the 36th percentile.

Q: What are the key memory differences?

A: The R7 350 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 M350 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do the architectures differ significantly?

A: Yes, the R7 350 uses the Cape Verde chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, while the R7 M350 uses the Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture.

Q: What is the R7 350's power requirement?

A: The R7 350 has a TDP of 55 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It is a single-slot card with no power connectors and measures 168 mm in length.

Q: Which GPU has better DirectX support?

A: The R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The R7 M350's feature level is higher.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 350 wins in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 7792 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 7057 both exceed the R7 M350's 6991 and 5662 respectively. The R7 350's 512 shading units and 32 TMUs provide a substantial compute foundation, and its 72.00 GB/s memory bandwidth ensures data flows freely. Its FP32 output of 819.2 GFLOPS outpaces the R7 M350's 779.5 GFLOPS. For gaming, rendering, or any GPU-accelerated workload that depends on throughput, the R7 350 is the stronger option.

The R7 M350 wins in memory capacity. Its 4 GB of DDR3 doubles the R7 350's 2 GB allocation, which can accommodate larger textures or datasets that exceed the R7 350's capacity. The R7 M350 also has a recorded base clock of 1000 MHz and boost clock of 1015 MHz, providing a defined frequency envelope. Its GCN 3.0 architecture and DirectX 12 (12_0) support represent a more modern feature set, even if the benchmarks do not reflect a performance advantage. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while narrower than the R7 350's x16, still offers adequate connectivity for its bandwidth constraints.

In practical terms, the R7 350 is the winner for tasks that stress memory bandwidth and shading throughput. The R7 M350 is only preferable when the 4 GB capacity is the deciding factor, and even then its 16.00 GB/s bandwidth creates a bottleneck. The recorded data offers no scenario where the R7 M350 outperforms the R7 350 in a benchmark.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several recorded specifications. The R7 350 uses the Cape Verde chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, while the R7 M350 uses the Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture. Transistor counts differ slightly: 1,500 million for the R7 350 versus 1,550 million for the R7 M350. Die sizes are 123 mm² and 125 mm² respectively, with transistor densities of 12.2M per mm² and 12.4M per mm².

The R7 M350 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz, while the R7 350 has no base or boost clock recorded. Memory clocks differ: the R7 350 runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the R7 M350 runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Memory size is 2 GB for the R7 350 and 4 GB for the R7 M350. Memory type is GDDR5 for the R7 350 and DDR3 for the R7 M350. The bus width is 128-bit for the R7 350 and 64-bit for the R7 M350, with bandwidths of 72.00 GB/s and 16.00 GB/s respectively.

Shading units number 512 for the R7 350 and 384 for the R7 M350. TMUs are 32 versus 24, and ROPs are 16 versus 8. Pixel rates are 12.80 GPixel/s and 8.120 GPixel/s, while texture rates are 25.60 GTexel/s and 24.36 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 819.2 GFLOPS for the R7 350 and 779.5 GFLOPS for the R7 M350. The R7 M350 has FP16 at 779.5 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the R7 350 has no recorded FP16.

The R7 350 has a TDP of 55 W, a single-slot width, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R7 M350 has no TDP, slot width, power connector, or PSU data recorded. Bus interfaces differ: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the R7 350 and PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R7 M350. The R7 350 has display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), while the R7 M350 has none recorded. DirectX support is 12 (11_1) for the R7 350 and 12 (12_0) for the R7 M350. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. Release dates differ: the R7 350 launched on July 5, 2016, while the R7 M350 launched on May 4, 2015. Both are end-of-life products.