AMD Radeon R7 M350 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Comparison

FAQ

Q: How large is the performance gap between the GTX 1660 Ti and the R7 M350 in the database?

A: The average benchmark score for the GTX 1660 Ti is 7,723, while the R7 M350 sits at 6,327. The GTX 1660 Ti wins both recorded head-to-head tests, with a dominant 629.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a narrower 2.9% lead in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card according to the recorded data?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti is bracketed by the AMD Radeon 540 (0.7% slower), AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (1.9% slower), AMD Radeon R7 250 (2.2% slower), and Intel Arc A310 (2.3% slower). The R7 M350 sits near the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (0% difference), NVIDIA Quadro K620 (0.7% faster), and two NVIDIA cards with identical scores at 0.9% faster.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan performance?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti wins Geekbench Vulkan by a slim 2.9% margin (5,827 vs 5,662). This is a much closer contest than the OpenCL result, suggesting the R7 M350 is relatively more competitive in Vulkan workloads.

Q: What are the architecture generations of these two GPUs?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti is based on the Turing architecture on a 12 nm process, while the R7 M350 uses the older GCN 3.0 architecture on a 28 nm process. The GTX 1660 Ti belongs to the GeForce 16 generation, and the R7 M350 is part of the Gem System (R7 M300) generation.

Q: What is the difference in transistor density between the two chips?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti's TU116 chip packs 6,600 million transistors into 284 mm², yielding a density of 23.2 million transistors per mm². The R7 M350's Meso chip has 1,550 million transistors across 125 mm², for a density of 12.4 million per mm².

Q: Which card is positioned better in the overall GPU percentile ranking?

A: The GTX 1660 Ti ranks in the 41st percentile among all GPUs, while the R7 M350 sits in the 36th percentile. This places the GTX 1660 Ti ahead of roughly half the field, with the R7 M350 trailing slightly behind it.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The GTX 1660 Ti uses the Turing architecture built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, while the R7 M350 relies on the older GCN 3.0 architecture on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. This process difference alone explains much of the performance and efficiency divide.

The TU116 chip inside the GTX 1660 Ti contains 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. By contrast, the Meso chip in the R7 M350 has just 1,550 million transistors on a much smaller 125 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story clearly: 23.2 million per mm² for the GTX 1660 Ti versus 12.4 million for the R7 M350. That is nearly double the packing density on the newer part.

Memory architecture differs completely. The GTX 1660 Ti uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M350 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with only 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. This is an 18-fold difference in memory bandwidth, which heavily impacts texture-heavy and high-resolution workloads.

Compute resources are also mismatched. The GTX 1660 Ti has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 raster operation units. The R7 M350 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. The GTX 1660 Ti's pixel rate is 84.96 GPixel/s versus 8.120 GPixel/s for the R7 M350, and texture rates are 169.9 GTexel/s versus 24.36 GTexel/s.

The FP32 compute throughput shows a 7x gap: 5.437 TFLOPS for the GTX 1660 Ti versus 779.5 GFLOPS for the R7 M350. Interestingly, the FP16 performance differs in nature: the GTX 1660 Ti achieves 10.87 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the R7 M350 stays at 779.5 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning no FP16 acceleration advantage.

Both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 1660 Ti supports DirectX 12_1 while the R7 M350 only reaches 12_0. Vulkan support also differs: the GTX 1660 Ti runs Vulkan 1.4, whereas the R7 M350 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1660 Ti wins in every recorded benchmark category. The database shows two head-to-head tests, both won by the GTX 1660 Ti. In Geekbench OpenCL, the lead is enormous at 629.9%, reflecting the massive difference in compute throughput and memory bandwidth. This makes the GTX 1660 Ti the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute, OpenCL-accelerated applications, and any workload that scales with raw shader throughput.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 1660 Ti still wins, but the margin shrinks to just 2.9%. This suggests that the R7 M350's GCN architecture is relatively efficient in Vulkan API workloads, despite its older design and far lower specifications. The Vulkan result is close enough that in Vulkan-specific tasks, the R7 M350 could be considered competitive, though still behind.

The R7 M350 does not win any recorded benchmark. Its strengths lie in its niche positioning: it is a low-power mobile-oriented part with a 4 GB DDR3 frame buffer, which may suffice for basic desktop tasks or older games at low settings. The data does not support any performance win for the R7 M350 in the tests recorded.

For users deciding between these two, the GTX 1660 Ti is the pick for gaming, content creation, or any GPU-accelerated workload. The R7 M350 is only relevant if the system constraints (such as a legacy laptop or a low-profile requirement) force its use.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti | AMD Radeon R7 M350 |

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

| Architecture | Turing | GCN 3.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 6,600 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 284 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.2M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1500 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz | 1015 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 12 Gbps effective | 2 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 16.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 384 |

| TMUs | 96 | 24 |

| ROPs | 48 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 84.96 GPixel/s | 8.120 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 169.9 GTexel/s | 24.36 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.437 TFLOPS | 779.5 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.87 TFLOPS (2:1) | 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 120 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

The GTX 1660 Ti also lists a dual-slot form factor, a 1x 8-pin power connector, a 300 W suggested PSU, and display outputs including DVI, HDMI 2.0, and DisplayPort 1.4a. The R7 M350 does not list slot width, power connectors, suggested PSU, display outputs, or physical dimensions in the database. The GTX 1660 Ti measures 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two shared benchmark results in the database are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. These tests define the head-to-head comparison.

Geekbench OpenCL: The GTX 1660 Ti scores 51,029 against the R7 M350's 6,991. This is a 629.9% delta, meaning the GTX 1660 Ti is roughly 7.3 times faster. The OpenCL test heavily stresses memory bandwidth and compute shader throughput, both of which massively favor the GTX 1660 Ti. Its 288.0 GB/s GDDR6 bandwidth versus 16.00 GB/s DDR3 explains most of the gap, while the 5.437 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 779.5 GFLOPS covers the rest.

Geekbench Vulkan: The GTX 1660 Ti scores 5,827, and the R7 M350 scores 5,662. The delta is only 2.9%, which is within the noise range of many benchmark runs. This narrow margin is surprising given the specification differences. The R7 M350's GCN architecture handles Vulkan efficiently, and the test may not be memory-bandwidth sensitive. Still, the GTX 1660 Ti wins, and the data records 2 wins for the GTX 1660 Ti and 0 for the R7 M350.

The overall picture from these two tests is that the GTX 1660 Ti dominates in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, while the Vulkan result shows the R7 M350 is not completely outclassed in every API. However, for any practical gaming or rendering scenario, the GTX 1660 Ti's advantages in bandwidth, pixel rate, and texture rate would translate into far higher frame rates.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is the superior GPU in nearly every measurable way. Its average benchmark score of 7,723 versus 6,327 for the R7 M350, its 41st versus 36th percentile ranking, and its 2-0 head-to-head record all point to the same conclusion.

The GTX 1660 Ti is the choice for anyone building a gaming PC or a workstation that needs GPU compute. Its 6 GB GDDR6 memory, 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 5.437 TFLOPS FP32 performance are in a completely different class from the R7 M350's 4 GB DDR3 and 779.5 GFLOPS. The 629.9% OpenCL lead demonstrates that the GTX 1660 Ti is roughly seven times more capable in compute workloads.

The R7 M350 has no recorded wins, but its 2.9% Vulkan deficit shows that it is not a total non-entity in API-specific tasks. Its 28 nm process and GCN 3.0 architecture are old, yet the Vulkan result suggests the drivers and architecture handle that API reasonably well. For a user locked into a system that can only accommodate the R7 M350, Vulkan-based games may run at playable levels, but expectations should be low.

The GTX 1660 Ti's launch MSRP was 279 USD, and it is now end-of-life. The R7 M350 is also end-of-life, with no recorded launch MSRP. Both are legacy parts in 2024, but the GTX 1660 Ti remains far more relevant for modern workloads, while the R7 M350 is best suited to basic display output or very light 2D tasks. The verdict is simple: pick the GTX 1660 Ti unless the hardware slot physically requires the R7 M350.