AMD Radeon R7 350 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 350 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M occupy similar positions in the overall GPU hierarchy, yet their benchmark results reveal distinct performance profiles. The data shows a single head-to-head comparison in Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 680M takes a decisive lead, but the R7 350 counters with a higher average score across all tested workloads. This analysis breaks down the numbers to determine which card suits specific use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M scores 9,230 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 350 trails with 7,792 points. This translates to a deltaPct of -15.6% for the R7 350, meaning the GTX 680M is roughly 18.5% faster in this specific workload. The margin is substantial, indicating that for compute-heavy OpenCL tasks, the older NVIDIA architecture holds a clear advantage.

However, the story changes when looking at average benchmark scores across all tests. The R7 350 posts an avgBenchmarkScore of 7,425, which is 5.7% higher than the GTX 680M’s 7,023. This discrepancy suggests that while the GTX 680M wins the single OpenCL test, the R7 350 performs better in other benchmarks not listed in the head-to-head table. The R7 350 also has a second benchmark result—Geekbench Vulkan at 7,057 points—which contributes to its higher average, whereas the GTX 680M’s only other listed score is Geekbench Metal at 4,815 points, a much lower figure that drags down its average.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The R7 350 sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 680M is just below at the 39th percentile. These are nearly identical positions, confirming that both cards are entry-level performers in the current landscape. The nearest rivals for the R7 350 include the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (avgScore 7,441, deltaPct -0.2%), the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, -0.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472, -0.6%). For the GTX 680M, the closest competitors are the NVIDIA T600 (7,035, -0.2%), the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6,975, +0.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6,946, +1.1%). These neighboring scores show that both cards are tightly clustered with other low-end GPUs, making the differences between them relatively minor in the broader market context.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the choice hinges on workload type. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M is the clear winner for compute-heavy applications that rely on OpenCL, as evidenced by its 15.6% lead over the R7 350 in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Users running tasks that leverage OpenCL acceleration—such as certain rendering, simulation, or data-processing workloads—should prefer the GTX 680M based on this benchmark.

Conversely, the AMD Radeon R7 350 is the better all-rounder when considering the average benchmark score. Its 7,425 avgBenchmarkScore surpasses the GTX 680M’s 7,023, and it also demonstrates Vulkan capability with a score of 7,057, which is close to its OpenCL result. The GTX 680M’s Metal score of 4,815 is notably lower than its OpenCL score, suggesting inconsistency across different APIs. If a user needs a GPU that performs more uniformly across multiple graphics and compute interfaces, the R7 350 is the safer choice.

The percentile rankings, however, indicate that neither card is a high performer by modern standards. Both sit below the 41st percentile, meaning they are outclassed by the majority of GPUs in the database. For gaming or general use, the GTX 680M’s higher transistor count and larger memory bus might offer advantages in specific scenarios, but the benchmark data does not directly support this—it only shows the OpenCL and average scores. Strictly from the numbers, the GTX 680M wins the compute test that matters most, while the R7 350 wins the consistency contest.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families with fundamentally different designs. The AMD Radeon R7 350 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Cape Verde chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

Transistor counts differ dramatically. The GTX 680M packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, whereas the R7 350 has only 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. This means the GTX 680M has more than double the transistor budget, which translates to a significantly larger and more complex chip. The transistor density is nearly identical—12.2M per mm² for the R7 350 versus 12.0M per mm² for the GTX 680M—so the GTX 680M’s advantage comes purely from die size, not manufacturing efficiency.

The compute resources also diverge. The GTX 680M features 1,344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the R7 350 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the GTX 680M a 2.6x advantage in shading units and a 3.5x advantage in TMUs, which directly explains its higher pixel rate (21.22 GPixel/s versus 12.80 GPixel/s) and texture rate (84.90 GTexel/s versus 25.60 GTexel/s). The FP32 performance tells a similar story: the GTX 680M achieves 2.038 TFLOPS, while the R7 350 manages only 819.2 GFLOPS.

Both architectures support DirectX 12, but with different feature levels. The R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GTX 680M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning the AMD card has a slightly higher feature level. Both support OpenGL 4.6, and their Vulkan versions are close—1.2.170 for the R7 350 and 1.2.175 for the GTX 680M. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as these features were not part of their respective eras.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals several key differences beyond the architecture. The memory subsystems are notably dissimilar. The R7 350 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 680M doubles both capacity and bus width, offering 4 GB on a 256-bit bus, which produces 115.2 GB/s—a 60% bandwidth advantage. Memory clocks also differ: the R7 350 runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the GTX 680M runs at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), but the wider bus on the NVIDIA card overcomes the lower clock speed.

Clock speeds are a point of contrast. The GTX 680M has explicit base and boost clocks of 719 MHz and 758 MHz, respectively, while the R7 350 lists no base or boost clock, only its memory clock. This means the R7 350’s core clock is unspecified in the data, making direct clock comparisons impossible.

Power consumption differs significantly. The R7 350 has a TDP of 55 W and is a single-slot card that requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 680M has a TDP of 100 W and comes as an MXM module, which is a mobile form factor; it also requires no power connectors but has no suggested PSU listed. The form factors are fundamentally different: the R7 350 is a desktop card with a length of 168 mm (6.6 inches), while the GTX 680M is a laptop module with no listed dimensions.

Display outputs diverge as well. The R7 350 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, making it suitable for desktop multi-monitor setups. The GTX 680M’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop manufacturer. The bus interfaces also differ: the R7 350 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 680M uses MXM-B (3.0), a mobile-specific standard.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 350 has a higher avgBenchmarkScore of 7,425, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M’s 7,023.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 680M in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 680M scores 9,230 versus the R7 350’s 7,792, which is a deltaPct of -15.6% for the R7 350, meaning the GTX 680M is approximately 18.5% faster in that test.

Q: What are the memory capacities and bus widths of each card?

A: The R7 350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the GTX 680M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Both support DirectX 12, but the R7 350 supports feature level 11_1, while the GTX 680M supports feature level 11_0.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The R7 350 has a TDP of 55 W, while the GTX 680M has a TDP of 100 W.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 680M has 1,344 shading units, while the R7 350 has 512, a 2.6x difference.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 350 wins in overall consistency and average performance. Its avgBenchmarkScore of 7,425 outpaces the GTX 680M’s 7,023, and its Vulkan score of 7,057 is nearly as high as its OpenCL score, suggesting balanced performance across different APIs. It also has a lower TDP (55 W versus 100 W), making it more power-efficient, and its desktop-oriented design with multiple display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2) suits multi-monitor desktop configurations. The R7 350 also supports a slightly higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0) and has a smaller die (123 mm² versus 294 mm²), which could imply lower manufacturing costs, though pricing is not discussed here.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M wins in raw compute performance and memory bandwidth. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 9,230 is the highest single benchmark result between the two, and its 115.2 GB/s bandwidth is 60% higher than the R7 350’s 72.00 GB/s. The GTX 680M also has more than double the transistors (3,540 million versus 1,500 million), which supports its higher pixel rate (21.22 GPixel/s versus 12.80 GPixel/s) and texture rate (84.90 GTexel/s versus 25.60 GTexel/s). For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications or needing larger memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB), the GTX 680M is the stronger choice. Its higher FP32 throughput (2.038 TFLOPS versus 819.2 GFLOPS) also makes it more capable for compute-heavy tasks.

In summary, the data presents a clear trade-off: the GTX 680M is the compute specialist with superior OpenCL performance and memory bandwidth, while the R7 350 is the generalist with better average scores and lower power draw. Neither card is a standout in the current market—both sit at the 39th and 40th percentiles, respectively—but their distinct strengths make each suitable for different workloads.