AMD Radeon R7 350 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one direct benchmark comparison between these two graphics cards, and it is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX scores 10,723 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7,792 points. That is a 37.6% advantage for the NVIDIA part. This is not a marginal gap; it is a substantial lead that places the two products in different performance classes despite both being end-of-life desktop and mobile graphics solutions from the same era.

To contextualize this result, the database shows that the GTX 675MX holds an average benchmark score of 8,427 across all recorded tests. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon 880M (average score 8,436, delta of -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458, delta -0.4%), and the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462, delta -0.4%). The GTX 675MX sits within 0.4% of these peers, meaning its OpenCL performance is broadly consistent with its overall standing. The R7 350, on the other hand, has an average score of 7,425, and its nearest rivals are the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441, delta -0.2%), AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, delta -0.3%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472, delta -0.6%). The gap between the two cards' average scores is 1,002 points, or roughly 13.5% in favor of the NVIDIA part.

The head-to-head OpenCL result is the only direct comparison available, but it is telling. The GTX 675MX's 37.6% lead over the R7 350 in this workload aligns with its higher average score and its higher percentile ranking. The GTX 675MX sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the R7 350 sits at the 40th percentile. These percentile figures are close, but the delta between the two parts in the OpenCL test is far larger than the percentile delta would suggest. This indicates that the R7 350's average score is buoyed by other benchmark results (its Vulkan score of 7,057, for instance), while the OpenCL test exposes a wide gulf in compute throughput.

The data also shows that the GTX 675MX has one benchmark win in head-to-head comparisons, while the R7 350 has zero. That is the entirety of the head-to-head record. The NVIDIA card wins the only test that pits them directly against each other. The R7 350 does not have a recorded win in any head-to-head matchup within this database entry. This is a clean, unambiguous result: in the one workload where both cards are measured side by side, the GTX 675MX is substantially ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX has an average benchmark score of 8,427, while the AMD Radeon R7 350 has an average score of 7,425. The GTX 675MX is ahead by 1,002 points.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the OpenCL head-to-head test?

A: The GTX 675MX scores 10,723 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 7,792 for the R7 350. The delta is 37.6% in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card, and how close are they?

A: For the GTX 675MX, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon 880M with an average score of 8,436 and a delta of -0.1%. For the R7 350, the nearest rival is the Intel UHD Graphics 750 with an average score of 7,441 and a delta of -0.2%.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 675MX is at the 43rd percentile, while the R7 350 is at the 40th percentile. The NVIDIA card ranks slightly higher.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 675MX has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the R7 350 has 72.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA card offers 43.2 GB/s more bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GTX 675MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The R7 350 has a slightly higher feature level.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturers and different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX is built on the GK104 chip, which uses the Kepler architecture. It belongs to the GeForce 600M generation and was fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The AMD Radeon R7 350, by contrast, uses the Cape Verde chip with the GCN 1.0 architecture. It is part of the Pirate Islands (R7 300) generation, also fabricated by TSMC on 28 nm, but the chip holds only 1,500 million transistors on a much smaller die of 123 mm². Its transistor density is 12.2 million per mm², nearly identical to the NVIDIA part despite the vastly different transistor count.

The compute resources differ substantially. The GTX 675MX has 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The R7 350 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That means the NVIDIA card has nearly twice the shading units, 2.5 times the TMUs, and twice the ROPs. These raw resource differences explain much of the performance gap in the OpenCL benchmark. The pixel rate for the GTX 675MX is 13.08 GPixel/s, while the R7 350 achieves 12.80 GPixel/s, a modest difference. The texture rate is far more lopsided: 52.32 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA card versus 25.60 GTexel/s for the AMD card, a 26.72 GTexel/s gap that reflects the TMU count difference.

Floating-point performance tells a similar story. The GTX 675MX delivers 1,255.7 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the R7 350 delivers 819.2 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA card is 436.5 GFLOPS ahead, which is roughly 53% higher. Neither card has recorded FP16 performance in the database. Memory configurations also diverge. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the GTX 675MX uses a 256-bit memory bus while the R7 350 uses a 128-bit bus. This yields bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s. The memory clock is also different: the GTX 675MX runs at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), while the R7 350 runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). The R7 350's higher memory clock cannot compensate for its narrower bus.

The API support shows minor differences. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 675MX supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the R7 350 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. DirectX support is slightly higher on the AMD card: DirectX 12 (11_1) versus DirectX 12 (11_0) for NVIDIA. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those features.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for raw compute performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX. Its 37.6% lead in the OpenCL head-to-head test is the most direct evidence. Its average benchmark score of 8,427 versus 7,425 for the R7 350 reinforces that conclusion. The GTX 675MX also holds a higher percentile ranking (43rd versus 40th) and has a benchmark win in the only head-to-head comparison recorded. The R7 350 has no head-to-head wins.

However, the verdict is not purely about performance. The R7 350 has a significantly lower power draw. Its TDP is 55 W, compared to 100 W for the GTX 675MX. That is a 45 W difference. The R7 350 is also a single-slot card with a length of 168 mm (6.6 inches), while the GTX 675MX is an MXM module, a mobile form factor. The R7 350 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 675MX uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and has no suggested PSU listed. The R7 350 also offers standard display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), whereas the GTX 675MX's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

The release dates differ by nearly four years: the GTX 675MX was released on 2012-09-30, while the R7 350 was released on 2016-07-05. The GTX 675MX's predecessor is the GeForce 500M and its successor is the GeForce 700M. The R7 350's predecessor is the Volcanic Islands generation and its successor is the Arctic Islands generation. Both are end-of-life products. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

For a user choosing between these two, the GTX 675MX offers clearly superior compute performance in the recorded tests. The R7 350 offers lower power consumption, a more conventional desktop form factor, and a newer release date. The choice depends on whether the priority is raw benchmark performance or system integration flexibility.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded specification. The most consequential differences are listed below.

• Chip: NVIDIA GK104 (Kepler) versus AMD Cape Verde (GCN 1.0)
• Transistors: 3,540 million versus 1,500 million
• Die size: 294 mm² versus 123 mm²
• Shading units: 960 versus 512
• Texture mapping units: 80 versus 32
• ROPs: 32 versus 16
• FP32 compute: 1,255.7 GFLOPS versus 819.2 GFLOPS
• Memory bandwidth: 115.2 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s
• Memory bus width: 256 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory clock: 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) versus 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective)
• Pixel rate: 13.08 GPixel/s versus 12.80 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 52.32 GTexel/s versus 25.60 GTexel/s
• TDP: 100 W versus 55 W
• Slot width: MXM Module versus Single-slot
• Bus interface: MXM-B (3.0) versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Suggested PSU: Not listed versus 250 W
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2
• Dimensions: Not listed versus 168 mm (6.6 inches) length
• DirectX support: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan support: 1.2.175 versus 1.2.170
• Release date: 2012-09-30 versus 2016-07-05
• Generation: GeForce 600M versus Pirate Islands (R7 300)

Both cards share the same process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), memory type (GDDR5), memory size (2 GB), and OpenGL support (4.6). Neither has a listed base or boost clock. Neither has a launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 675MX wins decisively in compute-heavy workloads. The OpenCL benchmark shows a 37.6% lead, and the underlying specifications support that result: more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, higher FP32 throughput, and double the memory bandwidth. The GTX 675MX is the clear choice for tasks that rely on raw parallel compute, such as OpenCL acceleration in productivity applications or any workload that can utilize its 1,255.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its 256-bit memory bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth also give it a substantial advantage in memory-bound scenarios. Its average benchmark score of 8,427 is higher, and its 43rd percentile ranking confirms it sits above the R7 350 in the overall database distribution.

The R7 350 wins in efficiency and integration flexibility. Its TDP of 55 W is less than the GTX 675MX's 100 W, making it suitable for systems with tighter power budgets. It is a single-slot card with a conventional PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, so it can be installed in standard desktop systems without the need for an MXM motherboard. Its display outputs (DVI, HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort 1.2) are ready for standard monitors, whereas the GTX 675MX relies on portable device-dependent outputs. The R7 350 also supports a slightly higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0) and has a higher memory clock (1125 MHz versus 900 MHz), though the narrower 128-bit bus limits the practical benefit. Its Vulkan score of 7,057 in the database shows it has some compute capability, but that score is still below the GTX 675MX's OpenCL result.

For a user prioritizing benchmark performance, the GTX 675MX is the stronger part. For a user prioritizing low power draw, standard desktop mounting, and a newer release date, the R7 350 has advantages. The data does not show any workload where the R7 350 beats the GTX 675MX in a direct comparison, but the R7 350's lower TDP and conventional form factor give it a distinct role in systems where those factors matter more than raw compute.