AMD Radeon R7 M350 vs AMD Radeon RX 6400 Comparison

# AMD Radeon R7 M350 vs AMD Radeon RX 6400

The data presents a clear generational chasm between two AMD mobile/desktop graphics solutions separated by nearly seven years of architecture evolution. The Radeon R7 M350, built on GCN 3.0 and a 28 nm process, is an end-of-life part from the 2015 era, while the Radeon RX 6400, based on RDNA 2.0 and a 6 nm node, represents a much later design. The benchmark results are unambiguous: the RX 6400 wins both head-to-head tests by massive margins, but the R7 M350 holds its own in a narrow percentile ranking context. This analysis digs into the specification sheets, architectural shifts, and benchmark deltas to determine who should choose which GPU and why.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the overwhelming choice for any user prioritizing raw compute performance, modern API support, or sustained graphical workloads. In the geekbench_opencl test, the RX 6400 scores 32011 against the R7 M350’s 6991, a delta of -78.2% favoring the newer card. The geekbench_vulkan result tells a similar story: 16372 versus 5662, a -65.4% gap. These are not incremental improvements; they represent a fundamental leap in performance capability. The RX 6400 also offers DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support, Vulkan 1.4, and ray tracing cores—features entirely absent from the R7 M350’s feature set.

However, the percentileVsAllGpus figures complicate the narrative slightly. The R7 M350 sits at the 36th percentile, while the RX 6400 sits at the 35th percentile. The average benchmark score for the R7 M350 is 6327, versus 6001 for the RX 6400. This suggests that in the broader context of all GPUs, the older card’s limited benchmark suite (only two tests) may not fully capture its standing, or that the RX 6400’s additional benchmarks (including PassMark tests) drag its average down. The nearestRivals data reinforces this oddity: the R7 M350’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 at 6330 (deltaPct 0), while the RX 6400’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000 (deltaPct 0).

For a user strictly looking at the head-to-head numbers, the RX 6400 is the only rational pick. For someone constrained to legacy drivers, older systems, or minimal power draw requirements, the R7 M350 remains functional but vastly inferior in compute. The data does not support any scenario where the R7 M350 outperforms the RX 6400 in shared tests. The verdict, therefore, is simple: the RX 6400 for anyone needing modern performance, the R7 M350 only for niche legacy compatibility where its lower specs are acceptable.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the geekbench_opencl benchmark, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins decisively with a score of 32011 compared to the R7 M350’s 6991. The deltaPct is -78.2%, meaning the RX 6400 outperforms the older card by more than four times in this compute test.

Q: Does the R7 M350 support ray tracing?

A: No. The FACT PACK lists rtCores as null for the R7 M350, while the RX 6400 has 12 ray tracing cores. This is a structural difference tied to the RDNA 2.0 architecture versus the older GCN 3.0 design.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The R7 M350 has a memory bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s using 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The RX 6400 also has 4 GB but uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s—exactly eight times higher bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RX 6400, built on a 6 nm process, has a transistor density of 50.5M / mm². The R7 M350, on a 28 nm process, has 12.4M / mm². This density difference directly contributes to the RX 6400’s superior performance despite a smaller die size.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the FACT PACK. The R7 M350 was released on 2015-05-04, while the RX 6400 launched on 2022-01-18.

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

A: The R7 M350 has an average benchmark score of 6327, while the RX 6400 has 6001. Interestingly, the older card’s average is higher despite losing every head-to-head test, likely because the RX 6400’s PassMark scores (e.g., passmark_directx_9 at 93, passmark_g2d at 722) are lower than its Geekbench results.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast and explains nearly every performance delta. The R7 M350 uses the Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, a design that debuted in the "Gem System (R7 M300)" generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,550 million transistors packed into a 125 mm² die. The transistor density is 12.4M / mm². This is a mature, power-efficient design for its time, but it lacks modern features.

The RX 6400, in contrast, uses the Navi 24 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, part of the "Navi II (RX 6000)" generation. It is built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC, with 5,400 million transistors in a smaller 107 mm² die, yielding a density of 50.5M / mm². This four-fold increase in density enables higher clock speeds and more compute units. The RX 6400 has 768 shading units versus 384 on the R7 M350, 48 texture mapping units versus 24, and 32 ROPs versus 8. The RX 6400 also includes 12 ray tracing cores, a feature class that simply did not exist in GCN 3.0.

The bus interface differs as well: the R7 M350 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the RX 6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4. This reflects the newer card’s reliance on faster serial bandwidth, though the x4 lane count is a trade-off. The RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. The DX12_2 vs 12_0 difference is significant for modern game features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading.

Specification Differences

The specification tables reveal stark contrasts across nearly every measurable field. The R7 M350 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz, while the RX 6400 boosts to 2321 MHz with a base of 1923 MHz and a game clock of 2039 MHz. Memory clocks also differ dramatically: the R7 M350 runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the RX 6400 runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). Memory bandwidth jumps from 16.00 GB/s to 128.0 GB/s—an eightfold increase.

Pixel rate and texture rate follow the same pattern. The R7 M350 delivers 8.120 GPixel/s and 24.36 GTexel/s, while the RX 6400 delivers 74.27 GPixel/s and 111.4 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 779.5 GFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS, a 4.6x difference. FP16 performance is 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1) on the R7 M350 versus 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) on the RX 6400. The RX 6400’s TDP is listed as 53 W, with a suggested PSU of 250 W and no power connectors. The R7 M350 has no TDP listed.

The RX 6400 includes display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a) and is a single-slot card. The R7 M350 has no display output information in the FACT PACK. The RX 6400 also has a launch MSRP of 159 USD, which can be stated once per the rules. The R7 M350 has no launch MSRP listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two head-to-head benchmarks are available in the FACT PACK, but both are decisive. The geekbench_opencl test shows the RX 6400 scoring 32011 against the R7 M350’s 6991. The deltaPct of -78.2% indicates the RX 6400 is roughly 4.6 times faster. This is the largest margin in the dataset and reflects the combined impact of higher clocks, more shading units, and faster memory.

The geekbench_vulkan test narrows the gap slightly but still favors the RX 6400 overwhelmingly: 16372 versus 5662, a deltaPct of -65.4%. This means the RX 6400 is about 2.9 times faster in Vulkan workloads. The smaller relative gap in Vulkan could suggest that the R7 M350’s GCN architecture handles low-level APIs better than expected, or that the Vulkan test is less sensitive to memory bandwidth and more sensitive to shading unit count. Either way, the RX 6400 wins both tests, giving it 2 wins and the R7 M350 0 wins in the head-to-head tally.

The R7 M350’s only other benchmark data comes from its own entry: geekbench_opencl at 6991 and geekbench_vulkan at 5662, which match the head-to-head figures. The RX 6400 has a broader suite: 3dmark_3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12 at 176, passmark_directx_10 at 54, passmark_directx_11 at 70, passmark_directx_12 at 30, passmark_directx_9 at 93, passmark_g2d at 722, passmark_g3d at 7673, and passmark_gpu_compute at 2812. These additional scores pull its average benchmark score down to 6001, below the R7 M350’s 6327, even though the RX 6400 is clearly the superior performer in direct comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M350 wins in exactly zero head-to-head benchmarks. Its only "advantage" is the higher average benchmark score of 6327 versus 6001, which is an artifact of the limited test suite and the RX 6400’s low PassMark scores for older DirectX versions. In practical terms, the R7 M350’s strengths are confined to legacy compatibility: it uses DDR3 memory, which may be more readily available in older systems, and its lower clocks (1000 MHz base) suggest lower power draw, though no TDP is listed. Its 36th percentile ranking is one point above the RX 6400’s 35th, but this is within the noise of benchmark variability.

The RX 6400 wins in every meaningful category. It has 12 ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, Vulkan 1.4, and a 6 nm process that enables higher density and efficiency. Its 7.130 TFLOPS FP16 performance (2:1 ratio) is nearly ten times the R7 M350’s 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), which matters for compute workloads that leverage half-precision. The 128.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is critical for texture-heavy games and high-resolution rendering. The RX 6400 also has a defined power profile: 53 W TDP, 250 W suggested PSU, and no external power connectors, making it a drop-in upgrade for many systems.

For use cases, the RX 6400 is the clear pick for gaming, content creation, or any modern workload. The R7 M350 should only be considered if the system requires PCIe 3.0 x8, DDR3 memory compatibility, or if the software environment cannot tolerate RDNA 2.0 drivers. The data does not support any performance-based argument for the R7 M350. The percentile rankings are close, but the head-to-head deltas are so large that they dominate any aggregate score interpretation.