AMD Radeon R7 350 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 350 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they occupy entirely different strata of the performance hierarchy. Based on the benchmark data, the GTX 970 is decisively faster in every measured test, yet the R7 350 holds a distinct advantage in power consumption and physical footprint. The data shows a 74% deficit for the R7 350 in OpenCL performance and a 64.7% deficit in Vulkan performance, making the GTX 970 the clear choice for any workload that leverages compute or modern graphics APIs. However, the R7 350’s 55W TDP and single-slot design make it a practical option for low-power or compact systems where the GTX 970’s 148W TDP and dual-slot requirement are non-starters.

The Verdict

The choice between these two cards is not about performance—the GTX 970 wins every benchmark by a massive margin. Instead, it is about system constraints and workload priorities. If you need raw compute throughput, the GTX 970 is the only rational option. Its OpenCL score of 29982 dwarfs the R7 350’s 7792, and its Vulkan score of 20005 is nearly three times the R7 350’s 7057. The GTX 970 also offers 4GB of memory versus 2GB, a 256-bit bus versus 128-bit, and roughly 4.8 times the FP32 throughput (3.920 TFLOPS vs 819.2 GFLOPS). For gaming, content creation, or any GPU-accelerated task where performance matters, the GTX 970 is the unambiguous winner.

The R7 350, however, has its niche. Its 55W TDP means it can run without any power connectors, while the GTX 970 requires two 6-pin connectors. The R7 350 is a single-slot card at 168mm in length, whereas the GTX 970 is a dual-slot card at 267mm. If you are building a small form factor or legacy system with a weak power supply (suggested 250W vs 300W), the R7 350 is the safer fit. The data also shows that the R7 350’s average benchmark score of 7425 is actually slightly higher than the GTX 970’s 7157, despite the GTX 970 winning all head-to-head tests—this is because the GTX 970’s average is dragged down by its low scores in PassMark DirectX 9 (143), DirectX 10 (46), and DirectX 11 (71) tests, which are not part of the head-to-head comparison. In short: pick the GTX 970 for performance, pick the R7 350 for power efficiency and space savings.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two cards is vast. The R7 350 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture on the Cape Verde chip, built on a 28nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The GTX 970 uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture on the GM204 chip, also on TSMC’s 28nm node, but with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die—a density of 13.1M per mm². While both use the same process node, the GTX 970’s die is over three times larger and houses more than three times the transistors.

The compute resources are equally lopsided. The R7 350 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 970 has 1664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 56 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s for the R7 350 versus 65.97 GPixel/s for the GTX 970, and a texture rate of 25.60 GTexel/s versus 122.5 GTexel/s. The GTX 970 also has a base clock of 1050 MHz and a boost clock of 1178 MHz, while the R7 350’s base and boost clocks are not specified in the data. Memory clocks differ too: the R7 350 runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the GTX 970 runs at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Both use GDDR5, but the GTX 970’s 256-bit bus provides 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth versus the R7 350’s 72.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

API support also diverges. The R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 970 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 970’s higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version reflect its more modern architecture. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, as those are absent from the data for both.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970 wins everywhere that performance is measured. In the head-to-head benchmarks, it takes the Geekbench OpenCL test with 29982 points versus 7792, a 74% lead, and the Geekbench Vulkan test with 20005 points versus 7057, a 64.7% lead. Its broader benchmark suite shows strengths in DirectX 12 (41 in PassMark DirectX 12), DirectX 11 (71), and GPU compute (4073 in PassMark GPU Compute). The GTX 970’s 4GB memory and 224.4 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for modern game textures and compute workloads, while its 3.920 TFLOPS FP32 performance is in a different league from the R7 350’s 819.2 GFLOPS.

The R7 350’s wins are not in raw speed but in operational characteristics. Its 55W TDP is less than half the GTX 970’s 148W, and its suggested PSU of 250W is lower than the GTX 970’s 300W. It requires no power connectors, fits in a single slot, and measures 168mm (6.6 inches) in length, making it dramatically easier to install in compact cases. The R7 350 also has a slightly higher average benchmark score (7425 vs 7157), which suggests that in mixed or older workloads—particularly those that don’t stress the GTX 970’s modern features—the R7 350 can hold its own. Its percentile rank is 40 versus the GTX 970’s 39, meaning the R7 350 sits marginally higher relative to all GPUs in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 is overwhelmingly faster, scoring 29982 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the AMD Radeon R7 350’s 7792. This represents a 74% advantage for the GTX 970.

Q: Does the R7 350 have any performance advantage?

A: In the head-to-head benchmarks, no—the GTX 970 wins both tests. However, the R7 350 has a higher average benchmark score (7425 vs 7157) and a higher percentile rank (40 vs 39), indicating it performs better relative to all GPUs in certain non-head-to-head metrics.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The R7 350 has a 55W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250W. The GTX 970 has a 148W TDP, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and suggests a 300W PSU.

Q: Can either card fit in a small form factor case?

A: The R7 350 is a single-slot card at 168mm (6.6 inches) in length, making it much easier to fit in compact systems. The GTX 970 is a dual-slot card at 267mm (10.5 inches) in length, 111mm in height, and 40mm in width, which requires more space.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 970 has 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth over a 256-bit bus with 4GB of GDDR5 memory. The R7 350 has 72.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with 2GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the GTX 970?

A: The GTX 970 had a launch MSRP of 329 USD. The R7 350’s launch MSRP is not specified in the data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is stark. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970 scores 29982 against the R7 350’s 7792, a delta of -74% for the AMD card. This is the largest single gap in the comparison, and it reflects the massive difference in shading units (1664 vs 512), TMUs (104 vs 32), and FP32 throughput (3.920 TFLOPS vs 819.2 GFLOPS). The GTX 970’s 224.4 GB/s memory bandwidth also plays a role, as OpenCL workloads often scale with memory bandwidth.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 970 again dominates with 20005 points versus 7057, a delta of -64.7%. This test is less lopsided than OpenCL but still represents a decisive victory for NVIDIA. The GTX 970’s newer Vulkan 1.4 support, compared to the R7 350’s Vulkan 1.2.170, may contribute to its efficiency in this API. The R7 350’s 16 ROPs and 12.80 GPixel/s pixel rate are simply insufficient to compete with the GTX 970’s 56 ROPs and 65.97 GPixel/s.

Outside the head-to-head, the GTX 970’s PassMark scores show a peculiar pattern: it scores 143 in DirectX 9, 46 in DirectX 10, 71 in DirectX 11, and 41 in DirectX 12, alongside a 9638 in G3D and 4073 in GPU Compute. These low API-specific scores are likely due to driver or workload characteristics, but they do not diminish its dominance in the two Geekbench tests. The R7 350 has no comparable API-specific scores in the data, so its performance profile is less detailed.

Specification Differences

The specification table reveals a clear hierarchy. The GTX 970 has a larger die (398 mm² vs 123 mm²), more transistors (5,200 million vs 1,500 million), and a higher transistor density (13.1M / mm² vs 12.2M / mm²). Its memory subsystem is far superior: 4GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 224.4 GB/s bandwidth, versus 2GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s. The GTX 970 also has more shading units (1664 vs 512), TMUs (104 vs 32), and ROPs (56 vs 16).

Clock speeds differ, with the GTX 970 having a base clock of 1050 MHz and boost of 1178 MHz; the R7 350’s clocks are not listed. Memory clocks are 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the GTX 970 versus 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) for the R7 350. The GTX 970’s pixel rate (65.97 GPixel/s) and texture rate (122.5 GTexel/s) are roughly five times the R7 350’s (12.80 GPixel/s and 25.60 GTexel/s). FP32 compute is 3.920 TFLOPS versus 819.2 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs also differ sharply. The R7 350 is a 55W single-slot card with no power connectors, a 250W suggested PSU, and a 168mm length. The GTX 970 is a 148W dual-slot card with two 6-pin connectors, a 300W suggested PSU, and a 267mm length. Display outputs favor the GTX 970 with HDMI 2.0 and three DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, versus the R7 350’s HDMI 1.4a and single DisplayPort 1.2. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16. The GTX 970 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both are end-of-life, with the R7 350 released later (2016) than the GTX 970 (2014), but that does not compensate for the performance gap.