GPU Comparison

The benchmark data presents a decisive generational mismatch. The NVIDIA T600 utterly outclasses the AMD Radeon R7 350 in every measured test, delivering performance that is multiple times higher while consuming less power. The R7 350, an end-of-life 2016 part, cannot compete with the T600's 2021 Turing-based architecture in raw compute, and the data reflects this completely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single most striking finding is the magnitude of the T600's victory in compute workloads. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the T600 scores 27,875 against the R7 350's 7,792. This translates to a -72% delta, meaning the T600 is roughly 3.6 times faster. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a leap across an entire architectural generation. The R7 350's score places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, just 0.2% below the Intel UHD Graphics 750 and 0.6% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, showing it is a low-end part even by the standards of its own era. The T600's OpenCL result, by contrast, sits in the 39th percentile, but its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970, which it trails by only 1.7%.

The Vulkan results tell the same story. The T600 posts 25,580 versus the R7 350's 7,057, a -72.4% delta. In this API, the R7 350 is even further behind its own nearest rivals, sitting 1.7% below the Intel Arc A310. The T600, meanwhile, is only 0.2% ahead of the GeForce GTX 680M and 1.3% ahead of the GeForce GTX 675M. The consistency of the ~72% margin across both OpenCL and Vulkan indicates that the T600's advantage is not workload-specific but fundamental to its design. The data shows no test where the R7 350 wins; the head-to-head record is 0 wins for AMD and 2 wins for NVIDIA.

Architecture Differences

The performance gap is rooted in two completely different design philosophies and process technologies. The R7 350 uses the Cape Verde chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M / mm². In contrast, the T600 uses the TU117 chip based on Turing architecture, also from TSMC but on a 12 nm process. This newer node packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, a density of 23.5M / mm².

These physical differences translate directly into execution resources. The T600 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The R7 350 is cut down to 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and just 16 ROPs. The T600's ROP count is double that of the R7 350, which is a critical factor in fill-rate-bound scenarios. This is reflected in the pixel rate: the T600 achieves 42.72 GPixel/s versus the R7 350's 12.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate shows a similar story, with the T600 at 53.40 GTexel/s against 25.60 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds further widen the gap. The R7 350 has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). The T600 has a base clock of 735 MHz and a boost clock of 1335 MHz, with memory at 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective). The T600's FP32 compute is listed at 1.709 TFLOPS, while the R7 350 manages only 819.2 GFLOPS, the T600 is more than twice as fast in raw floating-point throughput. The T600 also supports FP16 at 3.418 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature entirely absent from the R7 350's specifications.

Memory configuration is another decisive differentiator. The R7 350 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The T600 doubles the capacity to 4 GB of GDDR6 on the same 128-bit bus, but nearly doubles the bandwidth to 160.0 GB/s. In modern workloads that are increasingly memory-hungry, this 2.2x bandwidth advantage is as important as the compute advantage.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA T600 is the superior product for any compute or graphics task. It wins both benchmark tests by a margin of over 70%, offers double the memory capacity, nearly double the memory bandwidth, and more than double the FP32 throughput. The T600 also does this while consuming less power, its TDP is 40 W compared to the R7 350's 55 W, and requiring a smaller suggested power supply (200 W vs 250 W). The R7 350's only advantages are its smaller physical footprint at 168 mm in length (the T600's dimensions are not listed) and its older, more limited display output configuration.

For a user with a strict legacy requirement or a system that cannot accommodate a newer card, the R7 350 exists as a functional, low-power part. However, the benchmark results show that it performs at the level of integrated graphics in its nearest rivals, such as the Intel UHD Graphics 750. Anyone needing actual performance for 3D rendering, GPU compute, or modern gaming should select the T600. The T600's nearest rivals are older mobile GeForce parts like the GTX 680M and GTX 675M, but it still holds a slight edge over them. The R7 350 is not just slower; it is in a different performance class entirely.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 350 | NVIDIA T600 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Turing |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 512 | 640 |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Base Clock |, | 735 MHz |

| Boost Clock |, | 1335 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1125 MHz / 4.5 Gbps | 1250 MHz / 10 Gbps |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 72.00 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 12.80 GPixel/s | 42.72 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 25.60 GTexel/s | 53.40 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 819.2 GFLOPS | 1.709 TFLOPS |

| FP16 |, | 3.418 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 40 W |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 200 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA T600 is overwhelmingly faster. It scores 27,875 in Geekbench OpenCL and 25,580 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to the R7 350's 7,792 and 7,057, respectively. The delta is approximately -72% in both tests.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the NVIDIA T600 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory. The T600's memory bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s compared to 72.00 GB/s for the R7 350.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The NVIDIA T600 has a TDP of 40 W, which is lower than the AMD Radeon R7 350's 55 W. The T600 also has a lower suggested power supply of 200 W, versus 250 W for the R7 350.

Q: Which card has better DirectX 12 support?

A: The NVIDIA T600 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD Radeon R7 350 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). This indicates the T600 supports a more feature-complete version of the DirectX 12 API.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both the AMD Radeon R7 350 and the NVIDIA T600 are listed as end-of-life products. The R7 350 was released in 2016, and the T600 was released in 2021.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The NVIDIA T600 has 4,700 million transistors, which is over three times more than the AMD Radeon R7 350's 1,500 million transistors. This is partly due to the T600's larger die size of 200 mm² versus 123 mm².

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA T600: This is the clear winner in every benchmark category. It wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests by a margin of over 70%. Its architectural advantages, more shading units, double the ROPs, higher clocks, and doubled memory bandwidth, make it the only choice for any application that leverages GPU compute, such as rendering, video encoding, or machine learning inference. Its lower power draw (40 W vs 55 W) and support for a smaller PSU (200 W vs 250 W) also make it more versatile for compact workstation builds. The T600's four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs provide multi-monitor capability that the R7 350's single DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and DisplayPort 1.2 setup cannot match.

AMD Radeon R7 350: The data provides no scenario where the R7 350 wins a performance benchmark. Its only potential edge is in legacy system compatibility, given its older GCN 1.0 architecture and its shorter physical length of 168 mm. For a user who requires a card that fits into a very small chassis or needs to run software that is specifically optimized for older GCN architectures, the R7 350 is a functional option. However, its performance places it in the same league as integrated graphics like the Intel UHD Graphics 750, meaning it is only suitable for basic 2D output or very light, non-demanding 3D workloads. It is not a viable choice for any modern, performance-sensitive task.