AMD Radeon R7 M350 vs AMD Radeon R7 M440 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits the two AMD mobile GPUs evenly, with each claiming one victory in the recorded tests. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 takes the win in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 6991 against the M440's 5214, a substantial 34.1% advantage. This is the larger margin of the two head-to-head results, and it positions the M350 clearly ahead in compute-oriented workloads that leverage OpenCL acceleration.

The AMD Radeon R7 M440 counters in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 5751 versus the M350's 5662, a narrower 1.5% edge. While the margin is modest, the Vulkan result matters for modern game titles and graphics APIs that rely on Vulkan's lower-overhead command processing. The M440's win here suggests it holds a slight advantage in scenarios where the Vulkan API is the primary interface, even though its raw compute throughput is lower.

Looking at the broader percentile rankings, the M350 sits at the 36th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the M440 sits at the 32nd percentile. The average benchmark score confirms the separation: the M350 averages 6327 across recorded tests, while the M440 averages 5483. The M350's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 at 6330 (0% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 at 6282 (0.7% slower), placing it in a slightly higher performance band. The M440, by contrast, clusters with the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 at 5467 (0.3% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (0.3% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508 (0.5% slower).

In practical terms, the M350 wins where OpenCL compute density is the priority, such as productivity applications, media processing, or any workload that can utilize general-purpose GPU compute. The M440 wins where Vulkan graphics rendering is the focus, which covers a growing slice of modern gaming and 3D visualization. Neither card dominates across the board, so the choice depends entirely on which API the target software favors.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental silicon. They use the Meso chip, built on the GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both pack 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, with a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The architecture generation is listed as "Gem System" for both, though the M350 belongs to the R7 M300 series and the M440 to the R7 M400 series. Their predecessor and successor lineage is identical: Solar System before, Polaris Mobile after.

The core configurations differ. The M350 carries 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The M440 reduces this to 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and the same 8 ROPs. That means the M350 has 20% more shading units and 20% more TMUs, which directly explains its higher texture fill rate: 24.36 GTexel/s versus 17.82 GTexel/s. Pixel throughput also favors the M350, at 8.120 GPixel/s versus 7.128 GPixel/s, a smaller gap because both share the same 8 ROP count.

Clock behavior is another differentiator. The M350 lists a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz. The M440's database record shows no base or boost clock values, so its operating frequencies are not directly recorded; however, its lower pixel and texture rates imply a lower effective clock when the same architecture and ROP count are considered. Memory clocks also differ: the M350 runs at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective, while the M440 runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective.

Floating-point throughput follows the shading unit and clock differences. The M350 delivers 779.5 GFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). The M440 delivers 570.2 GFLOPS for both, a 36.7% deficit in raw math throughput. This is the largest architectural gap between the two and explains the OpenCL result.

Memory subsystems are similar in capacity and type but differ in bandwidth. Both have 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The M350 achieves 16.00 GB/s, while the M440 achieves 14.40 GB/s. The M350's faster memory clock gives it an 11.1% bandwidth advantage, which matters for bandwidth-sensitive workloads even though both share the same narrow bus.

The physical form factor also differs. The M350 has no recorded slot width, while the M440 is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent". This indicates the M440 is designed for integration into portable devices, whereas the M350 may have been deployed in a wider range of mobile configurations. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. API support is identical: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head tests tell a clear story of specialization. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M350 scores 6991 against the M440's 5214, a delta of 34.1% in favor of the M350. This is a decisive win, roughly one-third faster in raw compute. The margin aligns closely with the FP32 throughput gap (779.5 GFLOPS versus 570.2 GFLOPS), suggesting that most of the OpenCL advantage comes from the M350's larger shader array and higher clocks rather than any architectural efficiency difference.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the result flips. The M440 scores 5751 against the M350's 5662, a delta of 1.5% in favor of the M440. The margin is small, within what could be considered run-to-run variation, but it is consistent enough to appear in the database as a win. The M440's Vulkan edge is notable because it overcomes a 36.7% FP32 deficit, indicating that Vulkan performance in this pairing is not purely compute-bound. Driver optimizations, memory scheduling, or clock behavior under Vulkan workloads may account for the M440's better showing.

The combined picture: the M350 wins by a wide margin in OpenCL, the M440 wins by a narrow margin in Vulkan. The average benchmark score, which weights both tests, lands at 6327 for the M350 and 5483 for the M440, a 15.4% overall gap in favor of the M350. The M350's OpenCL dominance outweighs the M440's Vulkan edge in the aggregate.

For context, the M350's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100, averages 6330, putting the M350 essentially at parity with that workstation card. The M440's nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000, averages 5467, with the M440 sitting 0.3% above it. These placements confirm that the M350 operates in a higher performance tier than the M440, despite both being end-of-life mobile parts.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350, scoring 6991 versus 5214 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 34.1% advantage.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440, scoring 5751 versus 5662 in Geekbench Vulkan, a 1.5% edge.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same underlying chip?

A: Yes, both use the Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture on a 28 nm process, with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die.

Q: What is the difference in shading units?

A: The M350 has 384 shading units, while the M440 has 320, a 20% difference in favor of the M350.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The M350 provides 16.00 GB/s, while the M440 provides 14.40 GB/s, both using 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The M350 averages 6327 across recorded tests, placing it at the 36th percentile of all GPUs. The M440 averages 5483, placing it at the 32nd percentile.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several core specifications while sharing the same base silicon. The M350 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The M440 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rates are 8.120 GPixel/s for the M350 and 7.128 GPixel/s for the M440. Texture rates are 24.36 GTexel/s and 17.82 GTexel/s respectively. FP32 and FP16 throughput are 779.5 GFLOPS for the M350 and 570.2 GFLOPS for the M440, both at a 1:1 ratio.

Clock specifications differ. The M350 lists a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1015 MHz. The M440 has no recorded base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the M350 and 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the M440. Memory bandwidth is 16.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s.

The M350 has no recorded slot width, while the M440 is listed as an IGP with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent". Release dates differ: the M350 launched on May 4, 2015, and the M440 on May 14, 2016. Both share the same bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), API support (DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170), and production status (end-of-life). Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split decision. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 is the stronger compute part, winning OpenCL by 34.1% and carrying a higher average benchmark score of 6327 versus 5483. Its larger shader array, higher clocks, and faster memory bandwidth give it a commanding lead in any workload that stresses raw FP32 throughput or texture processing. Users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, media processing, or general GPU compute should favor the M350 without hesitation.

The AMD Radeon R7 M440, despite its compute deficit, wins the Vulkan test by 1.5%. This makes it the better choice for scenarios where Vulkan is the primary graphics API, such as many modern games and 3D applications built on that interface. The M440's IGP designation and portable-device-dependent outputs also suggest it was designed for tighter integration into laptops and compact systems, which may matter for system builders selecting a part for a specific chassis.

For most users, the M350 is the safer pick. Its 34.1% OpenCL lead is far larger than the M440's 1.5% Vulkan edge, and its average benchmark score is 15.4% higher. The M440's Vulkan win is real but narrow, and it does not compensate for the M350's substantial advantages in shading units, texture rate, pixel rate, and memory bandwidth. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the M350 at the 36th percentile versus the M440 at the 32nd, a modest but consistent gap.

Choose the M350 for compute-heavy or mixed workloads where OpenCL performance matters. Choose the M440 only if Vulkan compatibility is the sole priority and the 1.5% advantage in that specific test outweighs the M350's broader strengths. The recorded data does not support any other conclusion.