AMD Radeon R7 M350 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture: the NVIDIA RTX A400 outperforms the AMD Radeon R7 M350 in every head-to-head test recorded. The two available comparisons are both compute-oriented workloads, and the margins are substantial.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A400 scores 22,844 against the R7 M350's 6,991. That is a 69.4% lead for the NVIDIA card. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further: 22,237 versus 5,662, a 74.5% advantage. The R7 M350 wins zero of the two head-to-head tests; the RTX A400 wins both.

These results align with the broader average benchmark scores. The R7 M350 carries an average benchmark score of 6,327 across its tests, while the RTX A400 averages 6,078 across its broader suite. The apparent contradiction—a lower average despite winning head-to-head—stems from the RTX A400's additional PassMark tests, which include older DirectX 9/10/11 workloads where its scores are modest (87, 32, and 37 respectively). Its PassMark G3D score is 5,983, and its G2D score is 899, pulling the average down.

Context from nearest rivals reinforces the R7 M350's position. Its nearest competitor, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100, averages 6,330—a 0% delta. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 sits at 6,282, just 0.7% behind the R7 M350. Even the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, at 6,270, are only 0.9% off. This clustering suggests the R7 M350 is firmly placed in a mid-range compute tier, despite its age.

The RTX A400's nearest rivals tell a similar story. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 matches it almost exactly at 6,077 (0% delta), while the Quadro P2000 trails by 0.5% at 6,049. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 actually leads by 0.6% at 6,117, and the AMD Radeon 760M trails by 1% at 6,019. The RTX A400's average sits within a tight band of these competitors, suggesting its strong OpenCL/Vulkan results are offset by weaker legacy DirectX performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent entirely different eras of design. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 uses the Meso chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,550 million transistors onto a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA RTX A400, by contrast, uses the GA107 chip on Ampere architecture, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. It contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, for a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter—more than three times the R7 M350's density.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The R7 M350 runs at a 1000 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost. The RTX A400 operates at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. Memory clocks are even more divergent: the R7 M350 uses 1000 MHz DDR3 (2 Gbps effective), while the RTX A400 uses 1500 MHz GDDR6 (12 Gbps effective). Both have 4 GB of memory on a 64-bit bus, but bandwidth tells the real story—16.00 GB/s for the AMD versus 96.00 GB/s for the NVIDIA, a sixfold difference.

Compute resources are starkly different. The R7 M350 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The RTX A400 doubles the shaders to 768, matches the TMUs at 24, and doubles ROPs to 16. Critically, the RTX A400 adds 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores—features entirely absent from the R7 M350. Pixel rate jumps from 8.120 GPixel/s to 28.19 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 24.36 GTexel/s to 42.29 GTexel/s. FP32 performance rises from 779.5 GFLOPS to 2.706 TFLOPS; FP16 matches at 1:1 ratios for both.

API support reflects the generational gap. The R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card also uses PCIe 4.0 x8 versus the R7 M350's PCIe 3.0 x8.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the superior performer in every measured head-to-head test. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 3.3 times higher than the R7 M350's, and its Vulkan score is 3.9 times higher. The RTX A400's architecture is fundamentally newer, with ray tracing cores and tensor cores that the AMD part lacks entirely.

The R7 M350 is an end-of-life product from 2015, while the RTX A400 is an active workstation part released in 2024. The RTX A400 also offers more than double the shading units, six times the memory bandwidth, and roughly 3.5 times the FP32 throughput. Its pixel rate is 3.5 times higher, and its texture rate is 1.7 times higher.

However, the average benchmark scores complicate a simple "always pick NVIDIA" narrative. The R7 M350's average of 6,327 actually edges out the RTX A400's 6,078. This is because the R7 M350's two tests—both Geekbench—play to its strengths, while the RTX A400's nine tests include legacy PassMark DirectX workloads where it scores in the 27-87 range. The RTX A400's PassMark G3D score of 5,983 is respectable, but its DirectX 9 score of 87 and DirectX 10 score of 32 drag down the average.

For users prioritizing modern compute workloads (OpenCL, Vulkan), the RTX A400 is unequivocally the choice. For users running legacy DirectX 9/10/11 applications, the data is less clear—the R7 M350 has no recorded PassMark scores in those tests, so no direct comparison exists. The RTX A400's percentile ranking (35th versus 36th for the R7 M350) places both near the median of all GPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 scores 22,844, which is 69.4% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M350's 6,991.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both have 4 GB of VRAM, but the R7 M350 uses DDR3 at 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the RTX A400 uses GDDR6 at 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Does the R7 M350 support ray tracing?

A: No. The R7 M350 has no ray tracing cores, while the RTX A400 includes 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The R7 M350 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die (28 nm), while the RTX A400 has 8,700 million on a 200 mm² die (8 nm).

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The RTX A400 boosts to 1762 MHz, versus 1015 MHz for the R7 M350.

Q: What is the RTX A400's average benchmark score?

A: 6,078, which is slightly lower than the R7 M350's 6,327 average, despite the RTX A400 winning all head-to-head tests.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins decisively in every head-to-head benchmark recorded. Its Geekbench OpenCL lead of 69.4% and Vulkan lead of 74.5% indicate a massive advantage in compute-heavy workloads. The RTX A400 also wins on raw specifications: 768 shading units versus 384, 16 ROPs versus 8, 2.706 TFLOPS FP32 versus 779.5 GFLOPS, and 96 GB/s bandwidth versus 16 GB/s. It adds ray tracing and tensor core support, PCIe 4.0, and a modern 8 nm process.

The AMD Radeon R7 M350 wins only in the narrow sense of average benchmark score (6,327 versus 6,078) and percentile ranking (36th versus 35th). These figures reflect the R7 M350's focused test suite rather than superior performance. The R7 M350 also draws less power—its TDP is not listed, while the RTX A400 is rated at 50 W with a 250 W suggested PSU. The R7 M350's smaller die (125 mm² versus 200 mm²) and older 28 nm process may appeal to systems with strict physical constraints, though neither dimension data nor slot width is available for the AMD part.

For legacy DirectX workloads, the RTX A400's PassMark scores show weakness: DirectX 9 at 87, DirectX 10 at 32, DirectX 11 at 37, and DirectX 12 at 27. The R7 M350 has no recorded scores in these tests, so no direct comparison is possible. Users running only those older APIs might consider the R7 M350's higher average, but the absence of data prevents a definitive recommendation.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M350 | NVIDIA RTX A400 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1015 MHz | 1762 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 768 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| RT Cores | None | 6 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.120 GPixel/s | 28.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.36 GTexel/s | 42.29 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 779.5 GFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1) | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | Not listed | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Not listed | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Length | Not listed | 163 mm (6.4 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2024-04-15 |

Both cards share 4 GB memory, 64-bit bus width, 24 TMUs, and OpenGL 4.6 support.