AMD Radeon R7 M350 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data paints a decisive picture: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 outperforms the AMD Radeon R7 M350 in every benchmark category where both have recorded scores. The Quadro P2000 wins both head-to-head tests, with its Geekbench OpenCL score of 20,125 representing a 65.3% lead over the R7 M350's 6,991, and its Vulkan score of 23,566 dwarfing the AMD part's 5,662 by 76%. For any workload that leverages compute or graphics APIs, the Quadro P2000 is the clear choice from a pure performance standpoint.

However, the AMD Radeon R7 M350 is not without its own positioning. It carries a 36th percentile ranking among all GPUs, which is actually one point higher than the Quadro P2000's 35th percentile. This means that while the NVIDIA card is dramatically faster in absolute terms, the R7 M350 sits in a slightly more favorable position relative to the broader GPU landscape—likely due to its lower power footprint and specialized mobile design. The R7 M350's average benchmark score of 6,327 also edges out the Quadro P2000's 6,049, though this is driven by the AMD card having only two benchmark entries, both of which are compute-oriented.

For system integrators and users who already have a platform supporting the R7 M350's PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and need a basic mobile GPU for light duties, the AMD part remains serviceable. But for anyone choosing between these two for a workstation or desktop build, the Quadro P2000's 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 140.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and 5 GB of GDDR5 memory make it the only rational performance pick. The Quadro P2000 also brings a more modern feature set, including DirectX 12_1 support versus the R7 M350's DirectX 12_0, and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 is built on the GCN 3.0 architecture using the Meso chip, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000, by contrast, uses the Pascal architecture with the GP106 chip, built on TSMC's newer 16 nm process. It integrates 4,400 million transistors across a 200 mm² die, for a density of 22.0 million per square millimeter—a 77% higher transistor density that reflects the more advanced process node.

The compute resources are starkly different. The R7 M350 fields 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro P2000 more than doubles that with 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. This translates into a pixel rate of 8.120 GPixel/s for the AMD card versus 59.20 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card—a 7.3x gap. Texture rate tells a similar story: 24.36 GTexel/s versus 94.72 GTexel/s, a 3.9x difference.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The R7 M350 uses 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro P2000 uses 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s—an 8.8x bandwidth advantage. Clock speeds tell a more nuanced story: the AMD card runs at a 1000 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA card starts at 1076 MHz base and boosts to 1480 MHz. The memory clocks differ even more dramatically, with the R7 M350 at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) versus the P2000 at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

FP16 performance reveals a key architectural divergence. The R7 M350 delivers 779.5 GFLOPS of FP16, matching its FP32 output at a 1:1 ratio. The Quadro P2000 delivers only 47.36 GFLOPS of FP16, a 1:64 ratio relative to its FP32. This means the AMD card is actually far more capable in half-precision workloads, though the NVIDIA card's FP32 output of 3.031 TFLOPS is nearly 4x the AMD card's 779.5 GFLOPS.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 has an average benchmark score of 6,327, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 averages 6,049. However, this is based on different benchmark sets—the R7 M350 only has two Geekbench entries, while the Quadro P2000 has nine entries spanning multiple PassMark tests.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Vulkan performance?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 23,566, which is 76% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M350's 5,662. The Quadro P2000 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M350 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 has a transistor density of 22.0 million per square millimeter, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M350's 12.4 million per square millimeter. This reflects the P2000's newer 16 nm process versus the R7 M350's 28 nm process.

Q: What are the power and physical requirements of the Quadro P2000?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 has a TDP of 75 W, requires no external power connectors, and needs a suggested 250 W power supply. It is a single-slot card measuring 196 mm (7.7 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 uses 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 uses 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s—an 8.8x bandwidth advantage that significantly impacts texture-heavy workloads.

Q: Which GPU has a better percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 ranks in the 36th percentile, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 ranks in the 35th percentile. Despite the P2000's overwhelming performance lead, the R7 M350 holds a marginally higher relative position.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M350 | NVIDIA Quadro P2000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 4,400 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | 22.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1076 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1015 MHz | 1480 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 5 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 140.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 24 | 64 |

| ROPs | 8 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.120 GPixel/s | 59.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.36 GTexel/s | 94.72 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 779.5 GFLOPS | 3.031 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1) | 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | Not specified | 75 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Not specified | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2017-02-05 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers a one-sided result. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20,125, while the AMD Radeon R7 M350 manages only 6,991. This represents a 65.3% deficit for the AMD card. The gap is directly attributable to the P2000's 1,024 shading units, 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, and 140.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth—all of which are multiples of the R7 M350's corresponding specs. For OpenCL-based compute tasks such as physics simulations or video encoding, the Quadro P2000 will complete workloads in roughly a third of the time.

The Geekbench Vulkan test widens the gap even further. The Quadro P2000 scores 23,566 versus the R7 M350's 5,662, a 76% difference. This is the larger of the two deltas, suggesting that the P2000's Pascal architecture is particularly well-optimized for Vulkan's low-overhead API. The R7 M350's GCN 3.0 architecture, despite supporting Vulkan 1.2.170, appears to struggle with the API's modern rendering paradigms. The 1:64 FP16 ratio on the P2000 might seem like a disadvantage, but Vulkan workloads typically favor FP32 throughput, where the P2000 holds a 3.9x advantage.

Beyond the head-to-head tests, the Quadro P2000's PassMark results provide additional context. Its PassMark G3D score of 6,956 and GPU Compute score of 2,933 are strong for a 75 W card. The DirectX 9 score of 124 is notably higher than the DirectX 11 score of 47, which is typical for Pascal architecture cards that prioritize newer API paths. The Quadro P2000's nearest rivals in average score are the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6,077, 0.5% lower) and the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6,078, 0.5% lower), placing it in a competitive mid-range workstation segment.

The R7 M350's nearest rivals tell a different story. Its 6,327 average score sits just below the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6,330) and just above the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6,282, 0.7% lower). Interestingly, the R7 M350's average score is actually higher than the Quadro P2000's average of 6,049, despite the P2000 winning every direct comparison. This is because the R7 M350's two Geekbench scores are both compute-heavy, while the P2000's average is dragged down by its low PassMark DirectX scores (34 for DX10, 28 for DX12). The AMD card's benchmarks are also far closer to each other (6,991 versus 5,662), suggesting more consistent performance across different compute APIs.

The bottom line from the data is unambiguous: the Quadro P2000 wins 2-0 in head-to-head tests, with margins of 65.3% and 76%. The R7 M350's only statistical advantages are its marginally higher percentile ranking and its 1:1 FP16 ratio, which is relevant only in half-precision compute scenarios. For any real-world workstation task—3D rendering, CAD, video editing, or GPU-accelerated compute—the Quadro P2000 is the superior choice by a wide margin, despite being released nearly two years later with a 75 W power envelope.