AMD Radeon R7 350 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M and AMD Radeon R7 350 are both end-of-life mobile and desktop graphics solutions, respectively, built on the same 28 nm TSMC process node. While they share a manufacturing process, their architectural approaches and target segments differ significantly. The data shows a clear performance split across the available benchmarks, with the AMD Radeon R7 350 taking the sole win in the head-to-head comparison, though the NVIDIA card holds its own in other metrics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD Radeon R7 350 delivered a score of 7,792, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M scored 5,622. The delta percentage is -27.8%, indicating the NVIDIA card trails by roughly a quarter of the AMD card’s output. This is a substantial margin, positioning the R7 350 as the clear winner in compute-oriented OpenCL workloads. The R7 350 does not support Vulkan in the benchmark suite, but its OpenCL result alone is enough to claim the sole head-to-head victory.

For context, the GTX 880M’s average benchmark score across all tests is 8,040, while the R7 350’s average is 7,425. Interestingly, the GTX 880M’s average is higher despite losing the OpenCL test. This is because the GTX 880M also has a Geekbench Metal score of 10,458, which is not present in the head-to-head table but contributes to its overall average. The R7 350, on the other hand, has a Vulkan score of 7,057 and the OpenCL score of 7,792, which combine to its lower average. Therefore, the head-to-head result is only one slice of the picture: the GTX 880M excels in Metal, while the R7 350 dominates in OpenCL.

The delta percentages in the nearest rivals lists further contextualize these scores. The GTX 880M’s average score of 8,040 places it within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GRID K2 (8,080, delta -0.5%) and within 0.2% of the GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8,053, delta -0.2%). This suggests the GTX 880M is a mid-tier performer in its peer group. The R7 350’s average of 7,425 is 1.7% behind the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, delta -1.7%) and 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472, delta -0.6%). The R7 350 sits slightly below those rivals, but still within a narrow band. Notably, the R7 350’s average is 0.2% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441, delta -0.2%), showing it is competitive with integrated solutions.

In terms of percentile rankings, the GTX 880M sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 350 is at the 40th percentile. This 2-percentile gap is small, but it reflects the GTX 880M’s marginally better overall standing. The data suggests that while the R7 350 wins the OpenCL test decisively, the GTX 880M’s broader benchmark profile keeps it competitive in aggregate scoring.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M has an average benchmark score of 8,040, which is higher than the AMD Radeon R7 350’s average of 7,425.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 350 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the R7 350 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 7,792, compared to the GTX 880M’s 5,622, a delta of -27.8%.

Q: What is the GTX 880M’s best benchmark result?

A: The GTX 880M scores 10,458 in the Geekbench Metal test, which is higher than its OpenCL score of 5,622.

Q: How does the R7 350 perform in Vulkan?

A: The R7 350 scores 7,057 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, which is lower than its OpenCL score of 7,792.

Q: Are these GPUs close in overall performance?

A: The percentile rankings are close: the GTX 880M is at the 42nd percentile, while the R7 350 is at the 40th percentile. The average scores differ by 615 points, with the GTX 880M ahead.

Q: Which GPU has a lower power requirement?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 350 has a TDP of 55 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M has a TDP of 122 W. The R7 350 also suggests a 250 W PSU.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon R7 350 is the better choice for users prioritizing OpenCL compute workloads, as it delivers a 27.8% higher score in that specific test. The R7 350 also offers a significant efficiency advantage, with a TDP of 55 W compared to the GTX 880M’s 122 W, making it a more power-conscious option for systems with limited thermal headroom.

However, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M is the better pick for those who need broader API support or Metal performance. Its Geekbench Metal score of 10,458 is far above any single result for the R7 350, and its average benchmark score of 8,040 outpaces the R7 350’s 7,425. The GTX 880M also has a higher percentile ranking (42nd vs. 40th), indicating slightly better overall standing among all GPUs.

For a user with a portable device (the GTX 880M uses an MXM Module interface) who needs raw OpenCL throughput, the R7 350 is the data-backed winner. For a desktop user with a PCIe slot who values Metal performance and a higher aggregate score, the GTX 880M is superior. The R7 350’s lower TDP and single-slot design make it suitable for compact builds, while the GTX 880M’s 8 GB memory capacity suggests it is aimed at larger workloads, even though the R7 350’s smaller 2 GB frame buffer is adequate for its performance tier.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply on memory and bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R7 350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding only 72.00 GB/s. This is a 4x difference in memory size and roughly a 2.2x difference in bandwidth.

Clock speeds also differ: the GTX 880M has a base clock of 954 MHz and a boost clock of 993 MHz, with memory at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The R7 350 lists no base or boost clocks, but its memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). The GTX 880M’s higher memory clock contributes to its bandwidth advantage.

The compute units are also disparate. The GTX 880M has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the R7 350 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to pixel rates of 31.78 GPixel/s for the GTX 880M versus 12.80 GPixel/s for the R7 350, and texture rates of 127.1 GTexel/s versus 25.60 GTexel/s. The GTX 880M’s FP32 performance is 3.050 TFLOPS, while the R7 350 is at 819.2 GFLOPS.

Physically, the GTX 880M is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0) and no power connectors, while the R7 350 is a single-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and a length of 168 mm (6.6 inches). The R7 350 has a suggested PSU of 250 W and display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 880M’s display outputs are portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK104 chip, with a transistor count of 3,540 million on a 294 mm² die. The AMD Radeon R7 350 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Cape Verde chip, packing 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The transistor densities are nearly identical (12.0M / mm² for NVIDIA, 12.2M / mm² for AMD), but the GTX 880M has a much larger physical die.

The GTX 880M belongs to the GeForce 800M generation, with a release date of 2014-03-11, while the R7 350 is from the Pirate Islands (R7 300) generation, released on 2016-07-05. The GTX 880M’s predecessor is GeForce 700M and its successor is GeForce 900M, while the R7 350’s predecessor is Volcanic Islands and its successor is Arctic Islands.

API support differs slightly: the GTX 880M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, whereas the R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The R7 350’s higher DirectX feature level (11_1 vs. 11_0) is a minor architectural advantage, but the GTX 880M has a newer Vulkan version.

Both are end-of-life products, with the GTX 880M using TSMC’s 28 nm process and the R7 350 also on 28 nm from TSMC. The R7 350’s smaller die and lower transistor count align with its lower TDP of 55 W, while the GTX 880M’s larger die and higher TDP of 122 W reflect its higher compute resources.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 350 wins in OpenCL compute workloads, as evidenced by its 7,792 score versus the GTX 880M’s 5,622. It is also the clear winner in power efficiency, with a 55 W TDP versus 122 W, making it suitable for systems with limited power budgets or passive cooling. Its single-slot design and 168 mm length allow for installation in compact cases, and its 250 W suggested PSU means it can run on modest power supplies.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M wins in Metal performance, scoring 10,458, which is its strongest benchmark result and far exceeds any R7 350 score. It also has a higher average benchmark score (8,040 vs. 7,425) and a higher percentile rank (42nd vs. 40th), indicating better overall performance across a wider range of tests. Its 8 GB memory capacity and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth are superior for memory-intensive tasks, and its higher pixel and texture rates (31.78 GPixel/s and 127.1 GTexel/s) suggest better rasterization throughput.

For users targeting Apple’s Metal API or needing large frame buffers, the GTX 880M is the data-driven choice. For users prioritizing OpenCL acceleration or low power draw, the R7 350 is superior. The GTX 880M’s MXM form factor targets laptops, while the R7 350’s PCIe slot targets desktops, so the platform dictates the practical choice. In aggregate, the GTX 880M edges out the R7 350 in average score, but the R7 350’s decisive OpenCL win makes it a specialized tool for compute-heavy applications.