AMD Radeon R7 350 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two common benchmark tests for these cards, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 980 scores 34,676 points against 7,792 for the AMD Radeon R7 350, a 345% advantage. That is not a marginal gap; it is a multiple of nearly four and a half times the raw compute output. The Geekbench Vulkan result tells a similar story: the GTX 980 posts 22,543 points versus 7,057, a 219.4% lead. Both tests stress different aspects of the GPU, OpenCL being more general-purpose compute and Vulkan being a low-level graphics API, yet the margin remains overwhelming in both.

The delta percentages here are worth emphasizing. A 345% delta means the GTX 980 delivers 4.45 times the OpenCL performance of the R7 350. For Vulkan, the 219.4% delta translates to 3.19 times the performance. These are not close contests by any measure. The GTX 980's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 8,167, while the R7 350 averages 7,425. Interestingly, the GTX 980's average is pulled down by its weaker legacy DirectX tests, yet it still sits higher than the R7 350's average, which is based on only two recorded benchmarks.

The R7 350 has no recorded wins in any head-to-head test. The database shows winsA as 2 and winsB as 0. The GTX 980 also ranks at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, while the R7 350 sits at the 40th percentile. That 3-percentage-point difference in percentile placement understates the actual performance chasm in the head-to-head tests, because the percentile is computed against the entire GPU population, not just this pair.

When examining the nearest rivals, the GTX 980's average score of 8,167 places it just 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8,135) and 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8,129). The R7 350's average of 7,425 is 0.2% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441) and 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447). This contextualizes the pair: the GTX 980 competes with mid-range mobile GPUs from its era, while the R7 350 aligns with integrated graphics and older laptop parts. The performance gap between the two cards is therefore consistent with their different market positions.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 980 in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The GTX 980 scores 34,676 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 7,792 for the R7 350, a 345% advantage. This means the GTX 980 delivers roughly 4.45 times the OpenCL performance.

Q: Does the R7 350 win any benchmark against the GTX 980?

A: No. In the two recorded head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the GTX 980 wins both. The database records 2 wins for the GTX 980 and 0 for the R7 350.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest competitors?

A: The GTX 980's average score of 8,167 is 0.4% ahead of the GTX 950M and 0.5% ahead of the R9 M360. The R7 350's average of 7,425 is 0.2% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 750 and 0.3% behind the HD 8850M.

Q: What is the difference in Vulkan performance?

A: The GTX 980 scores 22,543 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the R7 350 scores 7,057. This gives the GTX 980 a 219.4% lead, meaning it is roughly 3.19 times faster in this API.

Q: Which GPU has a higher overall benchmark percentile?

A: The GTX 980 sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, while the R7 350 sits at the 40th percentile. The GTX 980 ranks higher, though both are below the midpoint of the overall distribution.

Q: What does the average benchmark score indicate for each card?

A: The GTX 980 averages 8,167 points across all recorded tests, while the R7 350 averages 7,425. Despite the GTX 980's much higher peak scores, its average is moderated by weaker legacy DirectX results, while the R7 350's average is based on only two compute-oriented tests.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 980 dominates every recorded metric where both cards have data. In compute-heavy workloads, whether through OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX 980 is the clear choice. The 345% OpenCL lead makes it suitable for tasks like general-purpose GPU compute, physics simulations, and any application that offloads parallel work to the graphics card. The 219.4% Vulkan lead indicates strong low-level graphics performance, which matters for modern games and applications that use this API directly.

The R7 350, by contrast, has no recorded wins. Its strengths lie elsewhere, specifically in its physical profile and power requirements, not in raw performance. The card is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and has a 55 W TDP. This makes it a candidate for systems where space and power draw are the primary constraints, not compute throughput. The data shows the R7 350 aligns with entry-level or legacy system upgrades, where the goal is basic display output and modest acceleration rather than high-end gaming or compute.

For users running older DirectX 9 or DirectX 10 workloads, the GTX 980 also has recorded scores: 164 in Passmark DirectX 9 and 53 in Passmark DirectX 10. The R7 350 has no recorded scores in these legacy tests, so the GTX 980 is the safer choice for backward compatibility with older software. The GTX 980's Passmark DirectX 11 score of 83 and DirectX 12 score of 46 further solidify its position across API generations, while the R7 350 lacks data for these tests entirely.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ substantially in nearly every specification. The GTX 980 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 3.1 times difference in bandwidth, which directly impacts memory-bound workloads.

The GTX 980's memory clock is 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the R7 350's memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). The GTX 980 has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The R7 350 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Each of these is a 4:1 ratio in favor of the GTX 980.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: the GTX 980 achieves 77.82 GPixel/s and 155.6 GTexel/s, while the R7 350 achieves 12.80 GPixel/s and 25.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute throughput is 4.981 TFLOPS for the GTX 980 versus 819.2 GFLOPS for the R7 350, a 6.1 times difference.

Power and physical dimensions also differ significantly. The GTX 980 has a 165 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The R7 350 has a 55 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The GTX 980 measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, and 40 mm (1.6 inches) in width. The R7 350 measures 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length, with no recorded height or width.

Display outputs differ: the GTX 980 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. The R7 350 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 980 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 980's launch MSRP was 549 USD; the R7 350 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 980 is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM204 chip. The R7 350 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, based on the Cape Verde chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge sharply: the GTX 980 packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the R7 350 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The transistor density is 13.1M per mm² for the GTX 980 and 12.2M per mm² for the R7 350, indicating similar manufacturing maturity but a vastly larger chip for the GTX 980.

The GTX 980 belongs to the GeForce 900 generation, with a release date of September 18, 2014. Its predecessor is the GeForce 700 series, and its successor is the GeForce 10 series. The R7 350 belongs to the Pirate Islands (R7 300) generation, with a release date of July 5, 2016. Its predecessor is the Volcanic Islands series, and its successor is the Arctic Islands series. Both cards are end-of-life in production status.

Architecturally, Maxwell 2.0 introduced improvements in power efficiency and geometry processing over earlier NVIDIA designs. GCN 1.0, by contrast, was AMD's compute-oriented design from 2012, with a focus on parallel throughput. The GTX 980's much larger transistor budget allows for 2048 shading units, while the R7 350's smaller Cape Verde die supports only 512. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those hardware features.

The API support differences reflect architectural capabilities: the GTX 980 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 12_1 feature level on the GTX 980 includes conservative rasterization and other advanced features absent from the R7 350's 11_1 level. The GTX 980 also has a higher Vulkan version, indicating better driver and hardware support for modern rendering techniques.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 is the superior performer in every head-to-head benchmark recorded. Its 345% OpenCL lead and 219.4% Vulkan lead are not just wins; they are dominant margins that place the GTX 980 in a completely different performance class. The GTX 980 also has a higher average benchmark score (8,167 versus 7,425) and a higher percentile ranking (43rd versus 40th).

Users who need raw compute performance, modern API support (Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1), or the ability to run a wide range of legacy DirectX workloads should choose the GTX 980. It offers 4 GB of memory, 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and 4.981 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. The card also supports up to three DisplayPort outputs and HDMI 2.0, making it suitable for multi-monitor setups.

The AMD Radeon R7 350 is the choice only when power and space constraints dominate. Its 55 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it easy to install in compact systems with modest power supplies. The card's 2 GB memory and 72.00 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for basic display tasks and light compute, but the recorded data shows no scenario where it outperforms the GTX 980.

For gaming, the GTX 980's higher pixel rate (77.82 GPixel/s) and texture rate (155.6 GTexel/s) versus the R7 350's 12.80 GPixel/s and 25.60 GTexel/s indicate a massive advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios. For compute, the 6.1 times FP32 advantage is equally decisive. The GTX 980 is the clear pick for any workload that stresses the GPU. The R7 350 is a low-power fallback for systems where the GTX 980's 165 W TDP and dual-slot footprint are not acceptable. Based strictly on the benchmark data, the GTX 980 wins outright in every measurable category.