AMD Radeon R7 350 vs AMD Radeon R7 M460 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 350 and AMD Radeon R7 M460 are two end-of-life graphics solutions from AMD, aimed at different segments of the market. The R7 350 is a desktop-oriented card built on the older GCN 1.0 architecture, while the R7 M460 is a mobile part using the newer GCN 3.0 architecture. The benchmark data in the database shows a clear overall winner in the R7 350, which leads in the only recorded head-to-head test by a significant margin, but the two products have distinct design goals that matter for specific use cases. This analysis breaks down where each GPU stands based on recorded measurements and architectural details.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 350 has an average benchmark score of 7425, which places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon R7 M460 has an average score of 6612, placing it in the 38th percentile. The R7 350 is ahead by roughly 12% in average score.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the R7 350 scores 7792, while the R7 M460 scores 6612. The R7 350 wins this head-to-head test with a 17.8% advantage.

Q: What memory bus widths do these GPUs use?

A: The R7 350 uses a 128-bit memory bus, while the R7 M460 uses a 64-bit bus. This contributes to a large difference in memory bandwidth, with the R7 350 achieving 72.00 GB/s compared to 36.00 GB/s for the R7 M460.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the R7 M460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The R7 M460 has a higher feature level in this regard.

Q: What is the transistor count for each chip?

A: The R7 350 uses the Cape Verde chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The R7 M460 uses the Meso chip with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. The R7 M460 has slightly more transistors and a slightly larger die.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The R7 350 has 512 shading units, while the R7 M460 has 384 shading units. The R7 350 also has 32 texture mapping units and 16 render output units, compared to 24 and 8 respectively on the R7 M460.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two AMD parts is fundamental. The R7 350 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture using the Cape Verde chip, and it belongs to the Pirate Islands generation (R7 300 series). The R7 M460, in contrast, uses the GCN 3.0 architecture with the Meso chip, and it is part of the Gem System generation (R7 M400 series). Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and both are end-of-life products, but the underlying designs differ in several key ways.

The transistor counts are very close: the Cape Verde chip packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the Meso chip has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical, at 12.2M / mm² for the R7 350 and 12.4M / mm² for the R7 M460. The newer GCN 3.0 architecture in the R7 M460 brings a higher DirectX feature level, supporting DirectX 12 (12_0) compared to DirectX 12 (11_1) on the R7 350. Both GPUs support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The compute resources differ substantially. The R7 350 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R7 M460 has fewer of each: 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This reduction in execution resources is partially offset by higher clock speeds on the R7 M460, which has a base clock of 730 MHz and a boost clock of 1024 MHz, while the R7 350 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. The memory configuration also diverges: both use 2 GB of GDDR5, but the R7 350 has a 128-bit bus and the R7 M460 has a 64-bit bus. The memory clock is identical at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), but the narrower bus halves the bandwidth on the R7 M460.

The R7 350 is a desktop card with a single-slot design, no power connectors, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and a TDP of 55 W. It uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and has display outputs including 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The R7 M460 is a mobile part with no recorded TDP, slot width, power connectors, suggested PSU, or display outputs in the database, and it uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The R7 350 has a recorded length of 168 mm (6.6 inches), while the R7 M460 has no dimensions recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 350 wins on raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth, making it the stronger choice for tasks that depend on those resources. Its 512 shading units and 128-bit memory bus give it a clear edge in fill-rate-bound and bandwidth-heavy workloads. The R7 350 also has a higher pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 25.60 GTexel/s, both of which exceed the R7 M460’s figures of 8.192 GPixel/s and 24.58 GTexel/s. The R7 350 achieves 819.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, versus 786.4 GFLOPS on the R7 M460.

The R7 M460 wins on architectural modernity. It is built on GCN 3.0, which is two generations newer in the GCN lineage, and it supports DirectX 12 (12_0), a higher feature level than the R7 350’s DirectX 12 (11_1). The R7 M460 also has a boost clock of 1024 MHz, which is a recorded specification and indicates the ability to reach higher clock speeds under load. It also has FP16 performance rated at 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1), a capability that is not recorded for the R7 350. For users prioritizing a more recent feature set over raw throughput, the R7 M460 has the advantage.

The R7 350 is the better choice for desktop systems where a full-height, single-slot card with display outputs is needed. It has a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and a 250 W suggested PSU, which makes it easy to install in a standard desktop. The R7 M460, as a mobile part, is designed for laptops and uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, which is typical for integrated or low-power mobile solutions. The recorded data shows the R7 350 is ahead in every measured performance category, but the R7 M460 offers a newer architecture with better DirectX support.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The R7 350 uses the Cape Verde chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, while the R7 M460 uses the Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture. The R7 350 belongs to the Pirate Islands generation (R7 300), and the R7 M460 belongs to the Gem System generation (R7 M400). Transistor counts are close, 1,500 million versus 1,550 million, and die sizes are 123 mm² versus 125 mm², resulting in transistor densities of 12.2M / mm² and 12.4M / mm².

Clock specifications differ in that the R7 M460 has recorded base and boost clocks of 730 MHz and 1024 MHz, while the R7 350 has no recorded base or boost clock. The memory clock is the same for both at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Memory size is identical at 2 GB of GDDR5, but the bus width differs: 128-bit for the R7 350 and 64-bit for the R7 M460. This leads to a bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s for the R7 350 and 36.00 GB/s for the R7 M460.

The compute units scale accordingly. The R7 350 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the R7 M460 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 12.80 GPixel/s for the R7 350 and 8.192 GPixel/s for the R7 M460. Texture rate is 25.60 GTexel/s versus 24.58 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 819.2 GFLOPS versus 786.4 GFLOPS. The R7 M460 also has FP16 performance recorded at 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1), which is not listed for the R7 350.

Power and interface specifications also differ. The R7 350 has a TDP of 55 W, a single-slot design, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and has display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The R7 M460 has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connectors, suggested PSU, or display outputs, and it uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. DirectX support differs as noted: 12 (11_1) for the R7 350 and 12 (12_0) for the R7 M460. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 350 has a length of 168 mm (6.6 inches), while the R7 M460 has no dimensions recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7792, and the AMD Radeon R7 M460 scores 6612. The R7 350 wins by a delta of 17.8%. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the R7 350 delivers noticeably higher compute performance in OpenCL workloads.

The R7 350’s advantage in this test is consistent with its hardware specifications. It has 512 shading units versus 384, a 128-bit memory bus versus 64-bit, and more than double the memory bandwidth at 72.00 GB/s versus 36.00 GB/s. The R7 350 also has higher pixel and texture rates, and higher FP32 throughput. The R7 M460’s higher boost clock of 1024 MHz helps close the gap, but it is not enough to overcome the R7 350’s larger execution resource pool.

Looking at the wider database, the R7 350’s average benchmark score is 7425, which places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7441 (0.2% higher), the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7447 (0.3% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7472 (0.6% higher), and the Intel Arc A310 at 7550 (1.7% higher). The R7 350 sits close to these parts, within a narrow band of roughly 2%.

The R7 M460’s average benchmark score is 6612, placing it in the 38th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 7730M at 6581 (0.5% lower), the Intel UHD Graphics P750 at 6554 (0.9% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 at 6698 (1.3% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M at 6513 (1.5% lower). The R7 M460 is near the middle of this group, with its closest rival being the GT 1010, which is slightly ahead.

The delta between the two GPUs in the head-to-head test (17.8%) is larger than the delta between the R7 350 and any of its nearest rivals, which are all within 2% of its average score. This indicates that the R7 350 and R7 M460 are not in the same performance class, despite both being Radeon R7 products. The R7 350’s average score of 7425 is well above the R7 M460’s 6612, a difference of roughly 12% in average terms.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon R7 350 for users who need the highest compute performance. It wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 17.8%. It has more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, a wider memory bus, and over double the memory bandwidth. Its average benchmark score of 7425 is in the 40th percentile, while the R7 M460’s 6612 sits in the 38th percentile. The R7 350 also has a lower transistor count but delivers more performance, which indicates that its larger execution resource allocation is the dominant factor.

The AMD Radeon R7 M460 is the choice for users who require a more modern architecture in a mobile form factor. It uses GCN 3.0, supports DirectX 12 (12_0), and has recorded base and boost clocks of 730 MHz and 1024 MHz. It also offers FP16 performance at 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1), which the R7 350 does not list. For laptop applications where power and space are constrained, and where the PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is sufficient, the R7 M460 provides a capable feature set despite lower raw performance.

For desktop users with a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot and a 250 W PSU, the R7 350 is the better pick. It is a single-slot card with no power connectors, making installation straightforward. It also provides display outputs for direct monitor connection. The R7 M460 lacks recorded display outputs, which is typical for a mobile part that relies on the host system for display connectivity.

The verdict from the database is straightforward: the R7 350 outperforms the R7 M460 in every measured metric. The R7 M460’s only advantages are architectural, specifically its newer GCN 3.0 design and higher DirectX feature level. Users who prioritize performance should choose the R7 350. Users who prioritize a modern feature set in a mobile context should choose the R7 M460. The performance gap is substantial, but the intended use cases are different enough that both parts have a place.