AMD Radeon R7 350 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX330 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, though not uniform, advantage for the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 in direct comparison with the AMD Radeon R7 350. Across the two benchmark tests available in the database, the NVIDIA part wins both, but the margin of victory differs dramatically depending on the API workload.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the MX330 scores 7,896 points against the R7 350's 7,792 points. That is a delta of only 1.3%, a narrow lead that places both parts in roughly the same performance tier for compute workloads that use the OpenCL API. This small gap suggests that for general-purpose compute tasks, the two cards are nearly interchangeable, with architectural differences mostly canceling out under this specific test.

The situation changes substantially in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the MX330 scores 9,019 points, while the R7 350 manages only 7,057 points. The delta is a decisive 27.8% in favor of the NVIDIA part. This is not a marginal win; it is a substantial performance gap that indicates the MX330 has a significant advantage when running Vulkan-based applications, whether those are games or compute workloads that leverage the Vulkan API. The R7 350's older GCN 1.0 architecture appears to be a clear liability in this scenario.

To put these scores in context, the MX330's average benchmark score across both tests is 8,458, placing it at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8870M with an average score of 8,462 (a 0% delta), the AMD Radeon 880M at 8,436 (0.3% ahead of the MX330), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX at 8,427 (0.4% ahead). The Intel Arc A380 sits 1.2% ahead with a score of 8,558. This cluster of scores shows that the MX330 is competitive with a range of older and newer discrete and integrated solutions, though it does not break away from that pack.

For the R7 350, the average benchmark score is 7,425, which lands at the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7,441 (0.2% behind the R7 350), the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7,447 (0.3% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7,472 (0.6% behind). The Intel Arc A310 trails by 1.7% with a score of 7,550. The R7 350 is thus positioned in a lower performance band than the MX330, roughly 1,000 points lower on the average score, which reflects the 27.8% Vulkan deficit dragging down its overall standing.

The head-to-head wins tally is 2 for the MX330 and 0 for the R7 350. No benchmark in the database shows the AMD card ahead. The OpenCL result is close enough that a different driver or workload could potentially flip it, but the Vulkan result is a decisive separation. The data suggests that any user choosing between these two for Vulkan-centric tasks should strongly favor the NVIDIA part, while OpenCL-only workloads would see a much less pronounced difference.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 wins with a score of 7,896 against the AMD Radeon R7 350's 7,792. The delta is 1.3% in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The MX330 scores 9,019 points, while the R7 350 scores 7,057 points. This gives the NVIDIA part a 27.8% advantage, a very substantial margin.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The MX330 has an average score of 8,458 across the two tests. The R7 350 has an average score of 7,425. This puts the MX330 at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs and the R7 350 at the 40th percentile.

Q: How does the MX330 compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 8870M?

A: The MX330's average score of 8,458 is essentially tied with the HD 8870M's average of 8,462, a delta of 0%. They are statistically indistinguishable in the database's measurements.

Q: How does the R7 350 compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650?

A: The R7 350 trails the GTX 1650 by 0.6%. The GTX 1650 has an average score of 7,472, while the R7 350 scores 7,425.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 350 has the higher memory bandwidth at 72.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 has a bandwidth of 56.06 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split between these two GPUs is straightforward based on the benchmark data. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 is the clear winner in any scenario that relies on the Vulkan API. The 27.8% lead in the Geekbench Vulkan test is the single largest performance difference recorded in this comparison. This makes the MX330 the better choice for modern graphics workloads, including Vulkan-based games and compute applications that take advantage of this API. The MX330's higher average score of 8,458 also suggests it is the more capable overall performer across the two tested workloads.

The AMD Radeon R7 350 does not win any benchmark in the database, so there is no test where the data shows it pulling ahead. Its only relative strength is in the OpenCL test, where the 1.3% deficit to the MX330 is small enough that the two are effectively peers for OpenCL compute. If a workload is exclusively OpenCL-based and does not stress the Vulkan path, the R7 350 would not be a significant bottleneck compared to the MX330. However, this is a narrow niche. For any mixed workload or Vulkan-centric task, the R7 350 falls behind.

The R7 350 does offer a wider memory bus and higher bandwidth, but the benchmark results do not translate that specification advantage into a performance win. The 128-bit bus and 72.00 GB/s bandwidth do not help it in the recorded tests. Its lower pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 25.60 GTexel/s, compared to the MX330's 25.50 GPixel/s and 38.26 GTexel/s, likely hurt it in rasterization-heavy tasks, even if those specific tests are not in the database. For users who prioritize Vulkan performance, the MX330 is the only logical choice. For users locked into OpenCL-only software, the R7 350 is not a losing option, but it offers no measurable advantage.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs reveal several fundamental differences that help explain the benchmark results. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 is built on a 14 nm process at Samsung, while the AMD Radeon R7 350 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The MX330 packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.3M per mm². The R7 350 has 1,500 million transistors on a much larger 123 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 12.2M per mm².

Memory configurations differ significantly. The MX330 uses a 64-bit memory bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 running at 7 Gbps effective, yielding a bandwidth of 56.06 GB/s. The R7 350 uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 at 4.5 Gbps effective, yielding a higher bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s. Both cards have 2 GB of memory, but the R7 350's wider bus gives it a raw bandwidth advantage that does not translate into a win in the benchmark data.

Compute unit counts are also different. The MX330 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operations pipelines. The R7 350 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having more shaders and TMUs, the R7 350's lower clocks (the database does not list base or boost clocks for the AMD part, but the MX330 runs at a base of 1531 MHz and a boost of 1594 MHz) result in lower fill rates. The MX330 achieves a pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 38.26 GTexel/s, while the R7 350 achieves only 12.80 GPixel/s and 25.60 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The MX330 has a TDP of 10 W and is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors. The R7 350 has a TDP of 55 W, a single-slot form factor, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MX330 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the R7 350 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The R7 350 also has a defined physical length of 168 mm (6.6 inches), while the MX330's dimensions are listed as portable-device dependent.

Display outputs are another point of difference. The MX330's outputs are described as portable device dependent, meaning they vary by the laptop or system it is integrated into. The R7 350 offers fixed outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is significant and explains the benchmark divergence, especially in Vulkan. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 is based on the Pascal architecture, specifically the GP108B chip. It belongs to the GeForce MX (3xx) generation. Pascal was designed with modern graphics APIs in mind, and the MX330 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Radeon R7 350 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture, built on the Cape Verde chip, and belongs to the Pirate Islands (R7 300) generation. Its API support is DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The lower DirectX feature level and older Vulkan version on the R7 350 are notable, as they can limit performance in newer titles and compute workloads.

The FP32 compute output also reflects the architectural differences. The MX330 delivers 1,224.2 GFLOPS, while the R7 350 delivers 819.2 GFLOPS. The MX330 also has a FP16 rate of 19.13 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio), while the R7 350 has no listed FP16 capability. This puts the NVIDIA card at a clear computational advantage for floating-point workloads.

The transistor layout and process node tell a story of design generation. The MX330's 14 nm Samsung process and 74 mm² die with 1,800 million transistors is a much denser, more modern design than the R7 350's 28 nm TSMC process and 123 mm² die with 1,500 million transistors. The higher transistor density of the MX330 (24.3M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm²) allows it to achieve higher performance with a far lower TDP of 10 W versus 55 W.

The release timeline also differs. The MX330 was released in February 2020, while the R7 350 was released in July 2016. The R7 350 lists its predecessor as Volcanic Islands and its successor as Arctic Islands, while the MX330 has no listed predecessor or successor. Both GPUs are marked as end-of-life in the database. The R7 350's older GCN architecture, combined with its lower API support and lower fill rates, explains why it lags so far behind in the Vulkan test. The MX330's Pascal architecture, despite being a low-power IGP, is better suited to modern driver optimization and API overhead reduction. The data indicates that architectural modernity matters more than raw shader count in this matchup.