AMD Radeon R7 M350 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only two shared benchmark results for these two GPUs, and in both instances the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 establishes a commanding lead over the AMD Radeon R7 M350. The most decisive margin appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the GTX 1650 scores 33042 against the R7 M350's 5662, a delta of 483.6%. This is not a marginal advantage; it is a generational gap expressed in raw compute throughput. The OpenCL result tells a similar story, with the GTX 1650 posting 29629 versus 6991, a 323.8% difference.

What makes these numbers particularly striking is the context of the overall average scores. The GTX 1650 carries an average benchmark score of 7472 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The R7 M350, by contrast, averages 6327 and sits in the 36th percentile. While the percentile gap appears modest, the head-to-head deltas reveal that in the specific workloads where both cards were measured, the performance separation is enormous. The Vulkan delta of 483.6% suggests that the newer architecture handles modern graphics APIs with far greater efficiency, while the OpenCL gap of 323.8% indicates a fundamental compute capability disparity.

Neither benchmark favors the AMD card. The wins column shows 2 for the GTX 1650 and 0 for the R7 M350, and there is no recorded test in which the R7 M350 even approaches parity. The closest relative performance in the database comes from the GTX 1650's nearest rivals, where the AMD Radeon HD 8850M sits just 0.3% behind, and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 trails by 0.4%. These are cards from a similar performance tier. The R7 M350, meanwhile, has nearest rivals that include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 at a 0% delta and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 at 0.7%, placing it in an entirely different performance class.

The practical implication is clear: in any application that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX 1650 delivers between three and five times the throughput of the R7 M350. This is not a subtle improvement or a refinement of existing capabilities. It is a wholesale redefinition of what the hardware can accomplish.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 averages 7472 across all recorded benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon R7 M350 averages 6327. The GTX 1650 also ranks in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 36th percentile for the R7 M350.

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

A: The GTX 1650 scores 33042 in Vulkan, while the R7 M350 scores 5662. This represents a 483.6% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the AMD R7 M350 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. In the two recorded head-to-head tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 1650 wins both. The wins record shows 2 for the GTX 1650 and 0 for the R7 M350.

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

A: The GTX 1650 has a memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s using a 128-bit bus with GDDR5 memory, while the R7 M350 has 16.00 GB/s bandwidth on a 64-bit bus with DDR3 memory.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, whereas the R7 M350 has 384 shading units. The GTX 1650 also has 56 texture mapping units and 32 raster output units, compared to 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs on the R7 M350.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The GTX 1650, built on TSMC's 12 nm process, has a transistor density of 23.5M per mm² across 4,700 million transistors. The R7 M350, on a 28 nm process, has 1,550 million transistors and a density of 12.4M per mm².

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data leaves little room for ambiguity. The GTX 1650 wins both recorded head-to-head tests, and its broader benchmark suite shows strengths across DirectX 10, 11, 12, and 9, with Passmark scores of 39, 58, 35, and 124 respectively. Its Passmark G3D score of 7880 and G2D score of 561 further indicate robust performance in both 3D rendering and 2D desktop workloads. The GTX 1650 also achieves 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 5.967 TFLOPS of FP16 via a 2:1 ratio, making it suitable for tasks that benefit from mixed-precision arithmetic.

The R7 M350, by contrast, has only two recorded benchmarks, both of which are losses. Its FP32 output is 779.5 GFLOPS, and its FP16 output is identical at 779.5 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning there is no half-precision acceleration. Where the R7 M350 might find a niche is in scenarios where its lower compute ceiling is sufficient, such as basic display output or legacy application support. The card supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, so it can run modern APIs, but its 8.120 GPixel/s pixel rate and 24.36 GTexel/s texture rate place it far behind the GTX 1650's 53.28 GPixel/s and 93.24 GTexel/s.

For users whose workloads are dominated by OpenCL compute or Vulkan rendering, the choice is unambiguous: the GTX 1650 delivers over four times the performance in Vulkan and over three times in OpenCL. For those who only need basic video output or very light 2D acceleration, the R7 M350 might suffice, but the data shows no scenario where it outperforms the GTX 1650 in any recorded metric.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 1650 uses a 12 nm process node, while the R7 M350 uses 28 nm. Transistor counts are 4,700 million versus 1,550 million, and die sizes are 200 mm² versus 125 mm². This results in a transistor density of 23.5M per mm² for the NVIDIA card and 12.4M per mm² for the AMD card, indicating a significantly more advanced manufacturing process.

Clock speeds show a similar divergence. The GTX 1650 has a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, with memory running at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The R7 M350 operates at 1000 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost, with memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Memory configurations differ as well: the GTX 1650 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the R7 M350 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 16.00 GB/s.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the GTX 1650. It has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, compared to 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs on the R7 M350. Pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s versus 8.120 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s versus 24.36 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 2.984 TFLOPS versus 779.5 GFLOPS, and FP16 is 5.967 TFLOPS versus 779.5 GFLOPS.

The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 1650 versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R7 M350. The GTX 1650 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the R7 M350 has no recorded TDP or PSU requirement. The GTX 1650 is a dual-slot card with dimensions of 229 mm by 111 mm by 35 mm, while the R7 M350 has no recorded dimensions. Display outputs on the GTX 1650 include 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the R7 M350 has no recorded display outputs. The GTX 1650 also carries a launch MSRP of 149 USD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The GTX 1650 is built on NVIDIA's Turing architecture, using the TU117 chip from the GeForce 16 generation. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 12 nm process. The R7 M350 uses AMD's GCN 3.0 architecture with the Meso chip, belonging to the Gem System (R7 M300) generation, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 28 nm process.

Turing brought significant improvements in shader efficiency and graphics pipeline throughput, which the benchmark data reflects in the Vulkan and OpenCL deltas. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, giving it access to the latest API features. The R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, so it lags in Vulkan version support.

Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both rely on traditional rasterization and compute paths. However, the GTX 1650's FP16 throughput of 5.967 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio indicates hardware support for accelerated half-precision, while the R7 M350's FP16 is identical to its FP32 at 779.5 GFLOPS, meaning half-precision offers no speedup. This architectural difference matters for workloads that use FP16 arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference tasks or image processing pipelines.

The production status for both is end-of-life, but their release dates are separated by nearly four years: the GTX 1650 launched on 2019-04-22, while the R7 M350 launched on 2015-05-04. The predecessor and successor lines also differ: the GTX 1650 follows the GeForce 10 series and precedes the GeForce 20 series, while the R7 M350 follows the Solar System generation and precedes Polaris Mobile.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for users choosing between these two GPUs. The GTX 1650 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark, often by margins exceeding 300%. Its average benchmark score of 7472 versus 6327, its higher percentile ranking, and its superior specifications across the board make it the stronger option for any workload measured in the database.

Users who need Vulkan performance should select the GTX 1650 without hesitation, given its 483.6% advantage in that test. Users who rely on OpenCL compute will also find the GTX 1650 vastly superior, with a 323.8% lead. The R7 M350, with only two recorded benchmarks and no wins, offers no measured advantage in any category.

That said, the R7 M350 might still serve a niche for systems with severe power or size constraints, as it has no recorded TDP, dimensions, or power connector requirements. But for anyone prioritizing performance in modern graphics APIs, the recorded data is unambiguous: the GTX 1650 is the only rational choice. The R7 M350's lower FP32 throughput, narrower memory bus, and older architecture place it in a fundamentally different performance tier, one that the GTX 1650 surpasses in every measurable way.