AMD Radeon R7 350 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 350 and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they belong to different eras and performance tiers. Based on the recorded benchmark data, the R7 350 is the clear winner in raw compute performance, delivering a 20% higher OpenCL score than the GT 555M. However, the GT 555M is a lower-power part, drawing 35 W compared to the R7 350’s 55 W, which may matter in specific portable system designs. The R7 350 also carries a much newer feature set, including Vulkan support and a newer DirectX version, making it the better choice for users who need modern API compatibility. The GT 555M, meanwhile, holds relevance only in legacy systems where its lower power draw and older PCIe interface are acceptable trade-offs.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon R7 350 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M in every recorded test. In the only head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the R7 350 scores 7792 against the GT 555M’s 6493, a 20% advantage. This is not a marginal difference; it is a substantial gap that will translate into faster compute workloads, better shader performance, and smoother handling of API-accelerated tasks. The R7 350 also sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, while the GT 555M ranks at the 37th percentile, confirming that the R7 350 is the more capable part overall.

For users who prioritize performance and modern software support, the R7 350 is the only rational choice. It supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GT 555M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. This means the R7 350 can run a broader range of current applications and games that rely on Vulkan, whereas the GT 555M is locked to older APIs. The R7 350 also has double the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1 GB) and uses faster GDDR5 memory, which further widens the performance gap in memory-intensive scenarios.

However, the GT 555M is not without its niche. Its 35 W TDP is significantly lower than the R7 350’s 55 W, making it a better fit for ultra-portable laptops or systems with strict thermal and power budgets. The GT 555M also uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, which is fine for older motherboards, while the R7 350 requires PCIe 3.0 x16 for full bandwidth. If you are upgrading an older machine that lacks PCIe 3.0, the GT 555M may be the only compatible option, but you will sacrifice performance. For any new build or any system that can accommodate the R7 350’s power draw, the data clearly favors AMD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The R7 350 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with the Cape Verde chip. The GT 555M uses NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture, built on an older 40 nm process, also at TSMC, with the GF106 chip. The process node difference alone explains much of the performance gap: the R7 350 packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The GT 555M, by contrast, has 1,170 million transistors spread across a much larger 238 mm² die, giving a density of just 4.9 million per square millimeter. This means the R7 350 is more efficient in terms of transistor packing and die size, which contributes to its higher performance despite a higher TDP.

The shader configuration differs dramatically. The R7 350 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The GT 555M has only 144 shading units and 24 TMUs, though it also has 16 ROPs. This nearly 4x difference in shading units is the primary reason the R7 350 achieves 819.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GT 555M manages just 339.8 GFLOPS. The pixel rate tells a similar story: the R7 350 renders at 12.80 GPixel/s, compared to the GT 555M’s 3.540 GPixel/s. The texture rate is also higher on the R7 350, at 25.60 GTexel/s versus 14.16 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The R7 350 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 555M uses 1 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, but only achieves 28.80 GB/s. The effective memory clock on the R7 350 is 4.5 Gbps, while the GT 555M runs at 1800 Mbps (1.8 Gbps). This bandwidth advantage is critical for modern workloads that move large textures or datasets. The R7 350 also supports a wider range of display outputs, including DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and DisplayPort 1.2, while the GT 555M’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning they vary by laptop design.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 350 wins in almost every measurable category, but the data allows for a nuanced split. In compute-heavy tasks, such as OpenCL acceleration, the R7 350 is decisively ahead. Its 20% higher OpenCL score, combined with its 2.4x higher FP32 throughput, makes it the superior choice for video encoding, physics simulations, and any workload that leverages general-purpose GPU computing. The R7 350 also wins in memory bandwidth, which benefits texture-heavy 3D rendering and high-resolution display output.

The GT 555M, however, has one clear advantage: power efficiency. At 35 W, it consumes 20 W less than the R7 350’s 55 W. In a laptop, this translates to longer battery life and less heat generation. The GT 555M also uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, which is backward compatible with older systems, whereas the R7 350 requires PCIe 3.0 x16 for its full bandwidth. If you are dealing with a legacy notebook that only supports PCIe 2.0, the GT 555M is the safer drop-in replacement. Additionally, the GT 555M has a lower memory clock (900 MHz versus 1125 MHz), which may reduce power draw in memory-intensive tasks, though this comes at a severe bandwidth cost.

For gaming, the R7 350 is the clear winner due to its higher pixel rate and texture rate. The GT 555M’s 3.540 GPixel/s pixel rate is a bottleneck for modern game resolutions, while the R7 350’s 12.80 GPixel/s can handle higher resolutions and more demanding effects. However, the GT 555M’s lower TDP may be preferable for users who game on battery or in thermally constrained chassis. The R7 350 also supports Vulkan, which is used by many modern game engines, while the GT 555M does not, meaning the R7 350 can run a wider selection of current titles.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 350 has an average benchmark score of 7425, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M has an average score of 6493. The R7 350 is about 14% higher on average.

Q: Does the GT 555M support Vulkan?

A: No. The GT 555M’s API list includes DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan is not listed. The R7 350 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The R7 350 has 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GT 555M has 28.80 GB/s. The R7 350 provides 2.5x more bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU draws less power?

A: The GT 555M has a TDP of 35 W, while the R7 350 has a TDP of 55 W. The GT 555M is more power-efficient.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life?

A: Yes, both are listed as end-of-life. The R7 350 was released in 2016, and the GT 555M was released in 2011.

Q: How do they compare in terms of transistor density?

A: The R7 350 has a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm², while the GT 555M has 4.9 million per mm². The R7 350 is significantly denser.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The R7 350 scored 7792, while the GT 555M scored 6493. This yields a 20% delta in favor of AMD. To put this in perspective, the R7 350’s nearest rivals in the database include the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (average score 7441, a 0.2% deficit) and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (average score 7447, a 0.3% deficit). The R7 350 sits just below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (average score 7472, a 0.6% deficit) and the Intel Arc A310 (average score 7550, a 1.7% deficit). This means the R7 350 is competitive with much newer integrated and entry-level discrete GPUs, despite its age.

The GT 555M, by contrast, is clustered with older mobile parts. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M (average score 6481, a 0.2% advantage for the GT 555M), followed by the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (average score 6476, a 0.3% advantage for the GT 555M). The GT 555M is also close to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (average score 6513, a 0.3% deficit) and the Intel UHD Graphics P750 (average score 6554, a 0.9% deficit). These numbers show that the GT 555M is roughly on par with mid-range mobile GPUs from its era, but it lacks the headroom to compete with even modest modern parts.

The 20% OpenCL delta between the two cards is consistent with their architectural differences. The R7 350’s 512 shading units and 819.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput give it a massive compute advantage over the GT 555M’s 144 shading units and 339.8 GFLOPS. The R7 350 also has a larger memory pool and faster memory, which reduces the likelihood of bandwidth stalls during compute workloads. In practical terms, the R7 350 will complete OpenCL tasks roughly one-fifth faster than the GT 555M, and that gap will widen in tasks that are sensitive to memory bandwidth or shader count.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category. The R7 350 uses a 28 nm process, while the GT 555M uses 40 nm. The R7 350 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, whereas the GT 555M has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. Transistor density is 12.2M per mm² for the R7 350 versus 4.9M per mm² for the GT 555M. The R7 350’s memory clock is 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the GT 555M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Memory size is 2 GB GDDR5 for the R7 350 versus 1 GB DDR3 for the GT 555M. Both use a 128-bit bus, but bandwidth is 72.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s.

Shader units are 512 versus 144, TMUs are 32 versus 24, and ROPs are identical at 16. Pixel rate is 12.80 GPixel/s versus 3.540 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 25.60 GTexel/s versus 14.16 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 819.2 GFLOPS versus 339.8 GFLOPS. TDP is 55 W versus 35 W. The R7 350 is single-slot with no power connectors, and it requires a 250 W power supply, while the GT 555M has no listed slot width, power connectors, or PSU requirement. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the R7 350 and PCIe 2.0 x16 for the GT 555M. Display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 for the R7 350, while the GT 555M’s outputs are portable device dependent. The R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GT 555M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan. The R7 350 measures 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length, while the GT 555M has no listed dimensions. Release dates are 2016 for the R7 350 and 2011 for the GT 555M. The R7 350’s predecessor is Volcanic Islands and its successor is Arctic Islands, while the GT 555M’s predecessor is GeForce 400M and its successor is GeForce 600M.