AMD Radeon R7 350 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti and AMD Radeon R7 350 are two end-of-life graphics cards separated by nearly four years of release dates, yet both target the low-power, entry-level segment. The data shows a clear overall winner in the GeForce GTX 650 Ti, which secures both head-to-head benchmark victories, but the R7 350 offers substantive advantages in memory capacity and power efficiency. This analysis breaks down their architectural origins, benchmark performance, and specification differences to determine which card suits which use case.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in overall benchmark performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti wins both head-to-head tests. It scores 7,877 in Geekbench OpenCL and 8,229 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7,792 and 7,057 respectively. The average benchmark score for the GTX 650 Ti is 8,053, compared to 7,425 for the R7 350.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Vulkan test?

A: The Vulkan gap is substantial. The GTX 650 Ti leads by 16.6% in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 8,229 versus 7,057. This is the largest delta between the two cards across all tested workloads.

Q: Does the R7 350 have any performance advantage at all?

A: In raw benchmark scores, no. The R7 350 loses both tests, with the OpenCL margin being a narrow 1.1% (7,792 vs 7,877). However, the R7 350 does have double the memory capacity (2 GB vs 1 GB) and a significantly lower TDP, which are qualitative advantages not reflected in these particular scores.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card?

A: The GTX 650 Ti's nearest rival by average score is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M at 8,040 (0.2% delta), while the R7 350's closest competitor is the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7,441 (-0.2% delta). The GTX 650 Ti sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, the R7 350 at the 40th.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 350 has a higher transistor density at 12.2 million transistors per mm², compared to 11.5M / mm² for the NVIDIA card. This is despite the GTX 650 Ti having more total transistors (2,540 million vs 1,500 million).

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The R7 350 draws only 55 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the GTX 650 Ti has a 110 W TDP and needs a single 6-pin connector. The suggested PSU also differs: 250 W for the R7 350 versus 300 W for the GTX 650 Ti.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK106S chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon R7 350 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Cape Verde chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. Both are therefore mature designs from their respective manufacturers, but they approach compute and rendering differently.

The GTX 650 Ti packs significantly more hardware resources. It features 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 ROPs. The R7 350 has fewer of each: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and the same 16 ROPs. This disparity in shader and TMU counts directly explains why the GTX 650 Ti achieves much higher theoretical fill rates: a pixel rate of 14.85 GPixel/s versus 12.80 GPixel/s for the R7 350, and a texture rate of 59.39 GTexel/s versus just 25.60 GTexel/s. The texture rate difference is particularly stark, with the NVIDIA card delivering more than double the texel throughput.

Transistor budgets and die sizes also differ markedly. The GK106S contains 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the Cape Verde chip has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. This means the NVIDIA chip is larger in absolute terms but slightly less dense (11.5M / mm² vs 12.2M / mm²). The R7 350's smaller die and lower transistor count contribute directly to its much lower 55 W TDP.

API support shows subtle differences. Both cards support DirectX 12, but the GTX 650 Ti is rated at 12 (11_0) while the R7 350 achieves 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan, though with slightly different Vulkan versions: 1.2.175 for NVIDIA and 1.2.170 for AMD. Display outputs also differ, with the GTX 650 Ti offering 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a, while the R7 350 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive but uneven picture. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti scores 7,877 against the AMD Radeon R7 350's 7,792, a narrow 1.1% victory. This is within the noise of typical run-to-run variation, suggesting that in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, the two cards are effectively comparable. The GTX 650 Ti's higher shading unit count and texture rate should theoretically give it a larger margin, but the R7 350's newer architecture (GCN 1.0) and higher transistor density appear to close the gap.

The Vulkan test tells a very different story. Here the GTX 650 Ti scores 8,229, while the R7 350 manages only 7,057. That is a 16.6% delta — a commanding lead for the NVIDIA card. Vulkan is a low-level API that rewards raw hardware throughput, and the GTX 650 Ti's advantages in texture rate (59.39 GTexel/s vs 25.60 GTexel/s) and FP32 compute (1,425.4 GFLOPS vs 819.2 GFLOPS) become far more apparent in this workload. The R7 350's FP32 output is barely more than half of the GTX 650 Ti's, which explains the large Vulkan deficit.

Looking at the broader context, the GTX 650 Ti's average benchmark score of 8,053 places it at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rivals are clustered tightly: the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost at 8,067 (-0.2% delta), the GRID K2 at 8,080 (-0.3%), the GTX 880M at 8,040 (0.2%), and the Quadro P5000 at 8,039 (0.2%). The R7 350's average of 7,425 puts it at the 40th percentile, with nearest rivals including the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7,441 (-0.2%), the Radeon HD 8850M at 7,447 (-0.3%), the GeForce GTX 1650 at 7,472 (-0.6%), and the Intel Arc A310 at 7,550 (-1.7%).

The net result is that the GTX 650 Ti secures 2 wins and 0 losses in head-to-head testing. The 16.6% Vulkan margin is the single most decisive data point, while the OpenCL result is essentially a tie. For anyone prioritizing Vulkan-based workloads or modern gaming APIs, the GTX 650 Ti is the clear choice. For pure compute via OpenCL, the difference is negligible.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. Memory capacity is a key differentiator: the R7 350 offers 2 GB of GDDR5, double the 1 GB on the GTX 650 Ti. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, but the GTX 650 Ti runs its memory at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) yielding 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth, while the R7 350 runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) for 72.00 GB/s. The GTX 650 Ti therefore has 20% more bandwidth, but the R7 350 has double the capacity for larger textures and datasets.

Compute resources differ significantly. The GTX 650 Ti has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R7 350 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 14.85 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 12.80 GPixel/s for AMD, and a texture rate of 59.39 GTexel/s versus 25.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,425.4 GFLOPS for the GTX 650 Ti versus 819.2 GFLOPS for the R7 350 — a 74% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Power and physical requirements also diverge. The GTX 650 Ti has a 110 W TDP, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and needs a 300 W suggested PSU. The R7 350 sips just 55 W, needs no power connectors, and works with a 250 W suggested PSU. Both are single-slot cards, but the GTX 650 Ti is shorter at 145 mm (5.7 inches) versus 168 mm (6.6 inches) for the R7 350.

The transistor and die data further separates them: 2,540 million transistors on 221 mm² for NVIDIA, versus 1,500 million on 123 mm² for AMD. The R7 350 has a higher transistor density (12.2M / mm² vs 11.5M / mm²), indicating a more compact design. Release dates are far apart, with the GTX 650 Ti launching on 2012-10-08 and the R7 350 on 2016-07-05. The GTX 650 Ti had a launch MSRP of 149 USD, while the R7 350 has no recorded MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti as the stronger performer in most measurable ways. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, with a decisive 16.6% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan and a 1.1% edge in Geekbench OpenCL. Its average benchmark score of 8,053 places it at the 42nd percentile, above the R7 350's 40th percentile. The GTX 650 Ti also delivers superior theoretical throughput in every category: higher pixel rate, more than double the texture rate, and 74% more FP32 compute. For users running Vulkan-based applications or workloads that stress shader and texture throughput, the GTX 650 Ti is the unambiguous choice.

However, the AMD Radeon R7 350 is not without its merits. Its 2 GB memory capacity is double that of the GTX 650 Ti, which matters for modern games and applications that need larger frame buffers. Its 55 W TDP is exactly half of the GTX 650 Ti's 110 W, and it requires no auxiliary power connector while only needing a 250 W PSU. This makes the R7 350 dramatically easier to install in legacy or low-power systems. The R7 350 also has a slightly higher transistor density (12.2M / mm² vs 11.5M / mm²) and a newer API version for DirectX (12 (11_1) vs 12 (11_0)).

The verdict depends on the use case. For anyone who needs maximum compute performance per dollar of silicon, the GTX 650 Ti wins outright. Its Vulkan lead is large enough to matter in real-world gaming, and its OpenCL parity means no significant penalty in compute tasks. On the other hand, the R7 350 is the better choice for upgrading an older office or HTPC system with a weak PSU, where its 55 W draw and lack of power connectors make installation trivial. The 2 GB memory also gives it a future-proofing edge for higher-resolution textures. Ultimately, the GTX 650 Ti is the faster card, but the R7 350 is the more versatile and power-efficient option for constrained builds.