AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one direct head-to-head comparison between these two mobile graphics solutions: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8851, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 scores 8689. That is a 1.8% advantage for the AMD part, a narrow but measurable lead in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL. The delta is small enough that it falls within typical run-to-run variance for benchmark software, yet the database records the AMD card as the winner in this specific test.

Looking at the broader average benchmark scores, however, the picture shifts. The MX350 has an average benchmark score of 10883 across its two recorded tests, which includes both Geekbench OpenCL (8689) and Geekbench Vulkan (13077). The R9 M265X only has one recorded benchmark result, the OpenCL score of 8851, and its average benchmark score is identical to that single result. This means the MX350's average is 23.0% higher than the R9 M265X's average, driven almost entirely by the Vulkan result.

The Vulkan score for the MX350 is particularly striking: 13077, which is 50.5% higher than its own OpenCL score. This suggests the Pascal architecture is substantially more efficient in Vulkan workloads, or that the Vulkan driver is better optimized for this GPU generation. The R9 M265X has no recorded Vulkan benchmark, so a direct comparison in that API is impossible from the database. Still, the asymmetry in available data points is itself informative: the MX350 was tested in two APIs, while the R9 M265X only has OpenCL coverage.

When placed against their nearest rivals, the two GPUs occupy different performance tiers. The MX350's average score of 10883 puts it 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10804) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10761). It sits 1.5% behind the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11047) and 1.7% behind the Radeon RX 550 (11075). These are tight clusters, indicating the MX350 is positioned right in the middle of a crowded mid-range mobile and entry-level desktop segment.

The R9 M265X, with its average of 8851, is 0.1% behind the Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8863) and 0.8% behind the Radeon 550X (8918). It leads the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746) by 1.2% and the GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8743) by 1.2%. The percentile ranking tells a similar story: the MX350 sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R9 M265X is at the 44th percentile. That five-point gap in percentiles aligns with the 23% difference in average scores.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries, which explains much of their behavioral divergence. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 uses the GP107S chip, built on Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X uses the Venus chip, built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm means the MX350 packs transistors roughly twice as densely. The MX350 has 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The R9 M265X has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 12.2M per mm².

Clock speeds also differ dramatically. The MX350 has a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1468 MHz. The R9 M265X is far slower in clock terms, with a base of 575 MHz and a boost of 625 MHz. That is a 135.4% higher boost clock on the NVIDIA part. Despite the R9 M265X having more texture units (40 versus 32) and a wider memory bus (128 bit versus 64 bit), the higher clocks on the MX350 lead to significantly higher fill rates. Pixel rate for the MX350 is 23.49 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s for the AMD. Texture rate is 46.98 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s.

Shading units are identical at 640 for both GPUs, and both have 16 ROPs. However, the raw FP32 compute tells a different story: the MX350 delivers 1.879 TFLOPS, while the R9 M265X manages 800.0 GFLOPS. That is a 134.9% advantage for the MX350 in theoretical single-precision throughput. The MX350 also lists an FP16 rate of 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the R9 M265X has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity but different in implementation. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5. The MX350 uses a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M265X uses a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part has 14.2% more bandwidth, which is notable given its slower core clocks. Memory clocks differ as well: the MX350 runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the R9 M265X runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

API support is broadly similar but not identical. Both support DirectX 12, but the MX350 lists "12 (12_1)" while the R9 M265X lists "12 (11_1)". OpenGL is 4.6 for both. Vulkan support differs: the MX350 lists version 1.4, while the R9 M265X lists 1.2.170. The R9 M265X also has a predecessor ("Solar System") and successor ("Polaris Mobile") listed, while the MX350 has no predecessor or successor recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The R9 M265X wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 1.8%. This is a meaningful result for anyone running OpenCL-heavy workloads such as certain compute tasks or older game engines that rely on OpenCL for physics or post-processing. The wider memory bus (128 bit versus 64 bit) and higher bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s) may contribute to this result, as OpenCL kernels often stress memory throughput alongside compute.

The MX350 wins everywhere else. Its Vulkan score of 13077 is the single highest recorded benchmark result in this comparison, and it drives the average benchmark score up to 10883. For modern game titles that use Vulkan, the MX350 should offer substantially better performance. The 1.879 TFLOPS FP32 rate, the 23.49 GPixel/s pixel rate, and the 46.98 GTexel/s texture rate all point to a GPU that can handle contemporary rendering workloads more comfortably than the R9 M265X.

The MX350 also has the advantage of a much newer release date: February 2020 versus March 2014 for the R9 M265X. Driver maturity, optimizations for newer APIs, and compatibility with modern software stacks are all factors that tend to favor the newer part, even if the raw OpenCL scores are close. The MX350's 14 nm process also implies better power efficiency, though the database does not record a TDP for the R9 M265X, so a direct power comparison is not possible from the data.

For users who prioritize compute in OpenCL specifically, the R9 M265X holds a slight edge. For everything else, including Vulkan gaming, raw compute throughput, fill rates, and overall average benchmark performance, the MX350 is the stronger choice.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs, based solely on the recorded data:

• Manufacturer: NVIDIA versus AMD
• Chip: GP107S versus Venus
• Architecture: Pascal versus GCN 1.0
• Generation: "GeForce MX (3xx)" versus "Gem System (R9 M200)"
• Process Node: 14 nm versus 28 nm
• Foundry: Samsung versus TSMC
• Transistors: 3,300 million versus 1,500 million
• Die Size: 132 mm² versus 123 mm²
• Transistor Density: 25.0M / mm² versus 12.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1354 MHz versus 575 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1468 MHz versus 625 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1752 MHz / 7 Gbps effective versus 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 56.06 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s
• TMUs: 32 versus 40
• Pixel Rate: 23.49 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 46.98 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1.879 TFLOPS versus 800.0 GFLOPS
• FP16: 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64) versus null
• TDP: 20 W versus null
• Power Connectors: "None" versus null
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x4 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: "Portable Device Dependent" versus null
• DirectX Version: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan Version: 1.4 versus 1.2.170
• Release Date: 2020-02-09 versus 2014-03-20
• Predecessor: null versus "Solar System"
• Successor: null versus "Polaris Mobile"
• Benchmark Scores: 8689 / 13077 versus 8851
• Average Benchmark Score: 10883 versus 8851
• Percentile: 49 versus 44

Identical fields include memory size (2 GB), memory type (GDDR5), shading units (640), ROPs (16), OpenGL version (4.6), and production status (both "End-of-life").

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has an average benchmark score of 10883, while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X has an average of 8851. That is a 23.0% difference in favor of the MX350.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R9 M265X win any benchmark?

A: Yes. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R9 M265X scores 8851 versus the MX350's 8689, a 1.8% advantage for the AMD GPU.

Q: What explains the MX350's higher average score?

A: The MX350 has a second recorded benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 13077. That Vulkan result is 50.5% higher than its own OpenCL score and lifts the average significantly. The R9 M265X has no Vulkan benchmark recorded.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The MX350 has a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1468 MHz. The R9 M265X has a base clock of 575 MHz and a boost clock of 625 MHz. The MX350's boost clock is 135.4% higher.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The R9 M265X has 64.00 GB/s bandwidth thanks to a 128-bit bus, while the MX350 has 56.06 GB/s on a 64-bit bus. The AMD part has 14.2% more bandwidth.

Q: What are the architecture generations for each GPU?

A: The MX350 is based on Pascal architecture (14 nm, Samsung foundry), while the R9 M265X is based on GCN 1.0 (28 nm, TSMC foundry). The MX350 is from the GeForce MX (3xx) generation, and the R9 M265X is from the Gem System (R9 M200) generation.

The Verdict

The data points to two different usage profiles. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X is the winner in the only direct OpenCL comparison, and it offers superior memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s) and a wider memory bus (128 bit). For anyone running OpenCL-specific compute tasks, the R9 M265X shows a slight edge in the recorded benchmark.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is the stronger overall product. Its average benchmark score of 10883 is 23.0% higher, its Vulkan score of 13077 is the single best result in this comparison, and its FP32 throughput (1.879 TFLOPS) is 134.9% higher than the AMD part. The MX350 also has dramatically higher clocks (boost of 1468 MHz versus 625 MHz), a more advanced 14 nm process, and newer API support including Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170.

The R9 M265X was released in March 2014 and is end-of-life, with a predecessor and successor recorded in the database. The MX350 was released in February 2020, also end-of-life. Neither card is current, but the MX350 represents a much later generation of mobile graphics.

For users choosing between these two for modern gaming or general compute, the MX350 is the clear pick based on average scores, Vulkan performance, and raw throughput. For users with specific OpenCL workloads where the R9 M265X's 1.8% advantage in that single test matters, the AMD part is defensible. But the overall data favors the NVIDIA GPU by a substantial margin, and the percentile ranking (49th versus 44th) confirms that the MX350 sits in a higher performance tier across the entire database.