AMD Radeon R7 350 vs AMD Radeon R9 M265X Comparison

AMD Radeon R9 M265X and AMD Radeon R7 350 are both end-of-life mobile and desktop graphics solutions from AMD, built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm process. The database records one shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, where the R9 M265X posts a score of 8851 against the R7 350’s 7792, a 13.6% advantage. The R9 M265X also holds a higher overall percentile rank (44th vs. 40th), while its average benchmark score of 8851 far exceeds the R7 350’s 7425. These two parts, despite sharing a common architectural heritage, diverge meaningfully in raw compute output and system positioning.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X delivers 8851 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7792. That difference translates to a 13.6% lead for the R9 M265X. This is not a marginal gap; it reflects a substantial difference in measured compute throughput under OpenCL workloads. The R9 M265X’s score places it ahead of the R7 350 by a margin that would be noticeable in any compute-bound task, from physics simulations to GPGPU acceleration.

In terms of relative positioning against the broader GPU field, the R9 M265X sits at the 44th percentile of all GPUs in the database, whereas the R7 350 ranks at the 40th percentile. The R9 M265X’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (average score 8863, delta -0.1%), the AMD Radeon 550X (8918, delta -0.8%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746, delta 1.2%). This shows the R9 M265X is effectively on par with professional and modern mobile discrete parts, trading blows within a 1.2% window. The R7 350, by contrast, sits alongside the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441, delta -0.2%), the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, delta -0.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, delta -0.6%). The R7 350 is essentially the baseline for this cluster, just 0.2% behind the Intel integrated solution and 0.6% behind the GTX 1650.

The head-to-head data shows a single clear winner: the R9 M265X wins the only recorded benchmark, with zero wins for the R7 350. The 13.6% delta between the two is consistent with their hardware specifications, as the R9 M265X carries more shading units and TMUs. No Vulkan result exists for the R9 M265X, while the R7 350 records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7057, but without a counterpart that number cannot be compared directly.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8851 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 13.6% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 350’s 7792.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall GPU population percentiles?

A: The R9 M265X ranks at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 350 sits at the 40th percentile, indicating the R9 M265X outperforms a slightly larger share of the field.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU based on average benchmark scores?

A: For the R9 M265X, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8863, -0.1%), AMD Radeon 550X (8918, -0.8%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746, 1.2%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8743, 1.2%). For the R7 350, the nearest rivals are the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441, -0.2%), AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, -0.3%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, -0.6%), and Intel Arc A310 (7550, -1.7%).

Q: Does the R7 350 have any benchmark where it beats the R9 M265X?

A: No. The database records only one shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, and the R9 M265X wins it. The R7 350 has a separate Vulkan score of 7057, but no R9 M265X Vulkan result exists for comparison.

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

A: The R9 M265X has an average benchmark score of 8851, while the R7 350 averages 7425 across its recorded benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan).

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The R7 350 delivers a pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s, which is higher than the R9 M265X’s 10.00 GPixel/s, despite the R9 M265X winning the compute benchmark.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M265X wins in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 8851 exceeds the R7 350 by 13.6%, and it also posts a higher average benchmark score (8851 vs. 7425). The R9 M265X achieves this with 640 shading units and 40 texture mapping units, compared to 512 shading units and 32 TMUs on the R7 350. Its FP32 throughput of 800.0 GFLOPS is slightly lower than the R7 350’s 819.2 GFLOPS, yet the OpenCL result favors the R9 M265X, suggesting that driver optimization or memory subsystem behavior may play a role. The R9 M265X also has a higher percentile rank (44th vs. 40th), indicating it sits better relative to the entire GPU landscape.

The AMD Radeon R7 350 wins in specific rasterization-oriented metrics. It has a higher pixel rate (12.80 GPixel/s vs. 10.00 GPixel/s) and a higher texture rate (25.60 GTexel/s vs. 25.00 GTexel/s). Memory bandwidth also favors the R7 350 at 72.00 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s, thanks to a faster effective memory clock of 4.5 Gbps against the R9 M265X’s 4.0 Gbps. The R7 350 also consumes less power, with a TDP of 55 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, whereas the R9 M265X has no TDP or PSU data recorded. For workloads that depend on fill-rate or memory bandwidth, such as older games at lower resolutions or certain pixel-shader effects, the R7 350 could hold an edge despite its lower compute score.

The R7 350 also provides a Vulkan benchmark result (7057), which the R9 M265X lacks. This means the R7 350 has verified Vulkan API performance in the database, while the R9 M265X’s Vulkan capability remains unmeasured. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, so API support is identical on paper, but only the R7 350 has a recorded Vulkan score.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share several core specifications but diverge in compute resources and memory clocking. Both are built on a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,500 million transistors and a 123 mm² die size. Memory configuration is identical in capacity (2 GB GDDR5) and bus width (128 bit), but the effective memory clock differs: the R9 M265X runs at 4.0 Gbps, while the R7 350 runs at 4.5 Gbps. This yields a bandwidth difference of 64.00 GB/s for the R9 M265X against 72.00 GB/s for the R7 350.

The shading unit count is 640 on the R9 M265X versus 512 on the R7 350, and TMUs are 40 versus 32. Both have 16 ROPs. Clock speeds are recorded only for the R9 M265X, with a base of 575 MHz and boost of 625 MHz; the R7 350 has no base or boost clock listed in the database. Pixel rate is 10.00 GPixel/s for the R9 M265X and 12.80 GPixel/s for the R7 350. Texture rate is 25.00 GTexel/s for the R9 M265X and 25.60 GTexel/s for the R7 350. FP32 performance is 800.0 GFLOPS for the R9 M265X and 819.2 GFLOPS for the R7 350.

The R7 350 has a TDP of 55 W, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R9 M265X has no TDP, slot width, power connector, or PSU data. The R7 350 has explicit display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2) and a length of 168 mm (6.6 inches), while the R9 M265X has no display output or dimension information.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are based on GCN 1.0 architecture and use the same 28 nm process from TSMC, with identical transistor counts (1,500 million) and die size (123 mm²). The chip names differ: the R9 M265X uses the Venus chip, while the R7 350 uses Cape Verde. These are distinct silicon implementations within the same architectural family. The R9 M265X belongs to the Gem System generation (R9 M200 series), released on 2014-03-20, whereas the R7 350 belongs to the Pirate Islands generation (R7 300 series), released on 2016-07-05. The R9 M265X lists its predecessor as Solar System and successor as Polaris Mobile, while the R7 350 lists predecessor Volcanic Islands and successor Arctic Islands.

The transistor density is identical at 12.2M per mm², confirming the same process node. The 2 GB GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus is common to both. The API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 350 is explicitly a desktop part with a 55 W TDP and single-slot cooler, while the R9 M265X is a mobile-oriented part (as indicated by its “R9 M” naming and its mobile successor), but the database does not specify its power draw. The R7 350’s higher effective memory clock (4.5 Gbps vs. 4.0 Gbps) and higher pixel/texture rates suggest it was tuned for rasterization efficiency, while the R9 M265X’s larger compute resource pool (640 vs. 512 shading units) points to a design favoring general compute throughput, which is consistent with its OpenCL victory.