AMD Radeon R7 M350 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two GPUs into entirely different performance strata. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 wins every shared benchmark in the database, and the margin is not subtle. In the two tests where both cards have recorded scores, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 970 takes both. There are no recorded wins for the AMD Radeon R7 M350 in any common workload.

The GTX 970 is a desktop-class part built for sustained rendering and compute. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests sits at 7157, placing it in the 39th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The R7 M350 averages 6327, good for the 36th percentile. That percentile gap is narrow, but the head-to-head deltas tell a different story: the GTX 970 leads by 328.9% in OpenCL and 253.3% in Vulkan. These are not incremental advantages; they represent a completely different performance class.

Where the R7 M350 might be considered is in scenarios that the database does not directly measure. It is a mobile-oriented part with no TDP recorded, no slot width, no power connectors, and no dimensions. The GTX 970 is a dual-slot card requiring two 6-pin connectors and a 300 W suggested power supply. For compact or power-constrained systems, the R7 M350 is the only one of the two that could plausibly fit, though the database does not provide power consumption figures for it. The GTX 970, by contrast, is a card that expects a full desktop power delivery infrastructure.

In raw compute, the GTX 970's shading units, texture units, and ROPs dwarf the R7 M350. The GTX 970 has 1664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 56 ROPs. The R7 M350 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Every throughput-related metric favors NVIDIA by a factor of roughly four to seven. The GTX 970 also posts a Passmark G3D score of 9638 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 4073, while the R7 M350 has no recorded Passmark results, so the database cannot confirm how it fares in DirectX 9 through 12 or 2D workloads.

Architecture Differences

Both chips are built on TSMC's 28 nm process, but they share little else. The GTX 970 uses the GM204 die with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the R7 M350 uses the Meso die with GCN 3.0. The transistor counts diverge sharply: the GTX 970 packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The R7 M350 contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, for 12.4 million per square millimeter. The GTX 970 is not just larger, it is denser by a small but measurable margin.

Memory architecture is where the two parts diverge most fundamentally. The GTX 970 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M350 also has 4 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 16.00 GB/s. That is a 14-fold difference in memory bandwidth. Clock speeds on the memory side reflect this: the GTX 970 runs its memory at 1753 MHz with 7 Gbps effective, while the R7 M350 runs at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective.

The core clocks are closer. The GTX 970 bases at 1050 MHz and boosts to 1178 MHz; the R7 M350 bases at 1000 MHz and boosts to 1015 MHz. The boost margin on the AMD part is almost negligible. Both GPUs support DirectX 12, but the GTX 970 reaches feature level 12_1 while the R7 M350 stops at 12_0. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6. Vulkan support favors NVIDIA: the GTX 970 lists Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M350 lists 1.2.170. The GTX 970 also supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R7 M350 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8.

The GTX 970 has display outputs specified (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2), while the R7 M350 has no display output data recorded. The R7 M350 also lacks recorded power connector, slot width, or dimensions data. The GTX 970 is fully specified on all those fronts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly two shared benchmarks between these GPUs, and both are decisive NVIDIA wins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970 scores 29982 against the R7 M350's 6991. That is a 328.9% advantage. The delta is so large that the AMD part is not competing in the same compute tier; it delivers less than a quarter of the OpenCL throughput. This test stresses general-purpose GPU compute, and the GTX 970's 3.920 TFLOPS of FP32 performance against the R7 M350's 779.5 GFLOPS explains the gap. The GTX 970 also has a massive bandwidth advantage, 224.4 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s, which directly impacts memory-bound OpenCL kernels.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 970 scores 20005 against 5662. That is a 253.3% lead. Vulkan is a lower-overhead API, and the GTX 970's Maxwell 2.0 architecture with Vulkan 1.4 support is better positioned for it than GCN 3.0 with Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 M350's 64-bit memory bus becomes a severe bottleneck in graphics workloads that stream textures and geometry, and the 8 ROPs limit fill-rate-bound operations to 8.120 GPixel/s versus the GTX 970's 65.97 GPixel/s.

No other head-to-head tests exist in the database. The GTX 970 has additional scores in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (369), Passmark DirectX 10 (46), DirectX 11 (71), DirectX 12 (41), DirectX 9 (143), G2D (764), G3D (9638), and GPU Compute (4073). The R7 M350 has no recorded scores for any of those tests. The absence of DirectX 11 and DirectX 9 data for the R7 M350 is notable, since those APIs were still common during its 2015 release window.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 970 uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the R7 M350 uses Meso with GCN 3.0. The GTX 970 is from the GeForce 900 generation; the R7 M350 is from the Gem System (R7 M300) generation. Transistor counts are 5,200 million versus 1,550 million. Die size is 398 mm² versus 125 mm². Transistor density is 13.1 million per square millimeter versus 12.4 million.

Base clocks are 1050 MHz versus 1000 MHz. Boost clocks are 1178 MHz versus 1015 MHz. Memory clock is 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Memory type is GDDR5 versus DDR3. Bus width is 256-bit versus 64-bit. Bandwidth is 224.4 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s. Shading units are 1664 versus 384. TMUs are 104 versus 24. ROPs are 56 versus 8. Pixel rate is 65.97 GPixel/s versus 8.120 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 122.5 GTexel/s versus 24.36 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.920 TFLOPS versus 779.5 GFLOPS. The R7 M350 has FP16 at 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1), while the GTX 970 has no recorded FP16 figure.

The GTX 970 has a TDP of 148 W, is dual-slot, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, and suggests a 300 W PSU. The R7 M350 has none of those fields recorded. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) versus 12 (12_0). Vulkan support is 1.4 versus 1.2.170. OpenGL is 4.6 for both. The GTX 970 is 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 40 mm wide; the R7 M350 has no dimensions recorded. The GTX 970 launched with a 329 USD launch MSRP; the R7 M350 has no launch MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970, with 224.4 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR5 bus. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 manages 16.00 GB/s over a 64-bit DDR3 bus.

Q: Are these two GPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: No. The GTX 970 sits in the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M350 sits in the 36th percentile. The head-to-head benchmark deltas are far larger than the percentile gap suggests.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between them?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970 leads by 328.9%. The GTX 970 scores 29982 versus 6991 for the R7 M350.

Q: Do both support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different feature levels. The GTX 970 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 970 has 1664 shading units. The R7 M350 has 384.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference?

A: The GTX 970 delivers 3.920 TFLOPS, while the R7 M350 delivers 779.5 GFLOPS. The GTX 970 is roughly five times higher in raw FP32 throughput.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 is the stronger GPU by every recorded metric. It wins both shared benchmarks by margins of 253.3% and 328.9%, has roughly five times the FP32 compute, fourteen times the memory bandwidth, and more than four times the shading units. Its average benchmark score of 7157 versus 6327 reflects a real but modest overall gap, while the head-to-head tests show the true scale of the performance difference in compute and modern graphics APIs.

The AMD Radeon R7 M350 is not competitive in any measured workload. Its only potential advantage is qualitative: it has no recorded TDP, power connector requirements, or dimensions, which suggests it could fit into systems where a dual-slot, 148 W card with a 300 W PSU recommendation would not. It also belongs to a mobile-oriented generation, the R7 M300 series, and supports PCIe 3.0 x8 rather than x16.

For anyone choosing between these two based on the database, the GTX 970 is the pick for compute, gaming, or any workload that stresses the GPU. The R7 M350 is only relevant in a system that physically cannot accommodate a full-size desktop card. The GTX 970 also has a recorded launch MSRP of 329 USD, while the R7 M350 has none, so the GTX 970 carries the only price reference in the data. There is no benchmark result in the database that favors the AMD part.