AMD Radeon R9 M275X vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and AMD Radeon R9 M275X are closely matched in overall standing, both sitting at the 49th percentile among all GPUs. However, their benchmark results reveal a stark split: the AMD card wins decisively in OpenCL compute, while the NVIDIA card dominates in Vulkan graphics workloads. This is not a case of one card being universally superior — it is a case of two architectures optimized for different tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant performance gap appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 scores 13,077 against the AMD Radeon R9 M275X’s 9,964. That is a 31.2% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a massive margin that indicates a clear generational leap in graphics API efficiency. The MX350’s Pascal architecture was built for modern driver overhead and asynchronous compute, and the data reflects that: it delivers over three-tenths more performance in this specific workload.

The direction reverses completely in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the AMD Radeon R9 M275X posts 11,200, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 manages only 8,689. The delta is -22.4% from NVIDIA’s perspective, meaning AMD is ahead by roughly a fifth. This is a substantial win for the older GCN 1.0 architecture, which was designed with raw compute throughput in mind — its 40 texture mapping units and 128-bit memory bus give it an edge in memory-bound and texture-heavy OpenCL tasks.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story of near-parity. The MX350 averages 10,883, while the R9 M275X averages 10,582 — a difference of only about 2.8%. Looking at their nearest rivals, the MX350 sits between the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761, 1.1% slower) and the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075, 1.7% faster). The R9 M275X, meanwhile, is bracketed by the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481, 1% slower) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629, 0.4% faster). The two cards occupy the same performance tier, but they achieve it through completely different strengths.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M275X wins in OpenCL compute scenarios. The 11,200 OpenCL score is not just higher than the MX350’s — it is also higher than any of the MX350’s nearest rivals, including the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047). This suggests the R9 M275X is the better choice for general-purpose GPU compute, such as video encoding, physics simulations, or any application that leverages OpenCL for acceleration. Its 128-bit memory bus delivers 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 28.5% more than the MX350’s 56.06 GB/s, and that bandwidth advantage likely fuels its OpenCL dominance.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 wins in Vulkan graphics. The 13,077 Vulkan score is 31.2% ahead of the R9 M275X, and it is also higher than the scores of all the AMD part’s nearest rivals — the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690) are both far behind. This makes the MX350 the stronger card for modern game engines that use Vulkan, as well as for any compute workload that runs through Vulkan’s compute pipeline. The MX350’s higher boost clock of 1,468 MHz (versus 925 MHz on the AMD) and its newer architecture contribute to this advantage in API efficiency.

A practical split emerges: if the workload is OpenCL-centric, the R9 M275X is the pick; if the workload is Vulkan-centric, the MX350 is clearly superior. The tie in wins (1-1) reflects this binary outcome — there is no overall winner, only a winner per API.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and foundries. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 uses the GP107S chip on a 14 nm process from Samsung, featuring Pascal architecture. It packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The AMD Radeon R9 M275X uses the Venus chip on a 28 nm process from TSMC, with GCN 1.0 architecture. It contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2M per mm².

The core configurations differ significantly despite both having 640 shading units. The MX350 pairs those 640 shaders with 32 texture mapping units and 16 ROPs, while the R9 M275X uses 40 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The extra TMUs on the AMD card contribute to its higher texture rate — 37.00 GTexel/s versus the MX350’s 46.98 GTexel/s, wait, that is incorrect. The MX350 actually has the higher texture rate at 46.98 GTexel/s despite fewer TMUs, because its clock speed is so much higher. The pixel rate tells a similar story: the MX350 hits 23.49 GPixel/s, while the R9 M275X manages only 14.80 GPixel/s.

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The MX350 runs at a 1,354 MHz base and 1,468 MHz boost, while the R9 M275X runs at a 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. This 59% advantage in boost clock translates directly into compute throughput: the MX350 delivers 1.879 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS (1.184 TFLOPS) for the AMD part. The MX350 also supports FP16 at 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a feature the R9 M275X lacks entirely.

Memory subsystems also diverge. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5, but the MX350 has a 64-bit bus while the R9 M275X has a 128-bit bus. This gives the AMD card 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus the MX350’s 56.06 GB/s. Memory clock speeds differ too: the MX350 runs at 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the R9 M275X runs at 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). The wider bus compensates for the lower clock on the AMD side.

API support shows the MX350’s newer pedigree: it supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R9 M275X only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Vulkan versions differ — MX350 offers 1.4, while R9 M275X offers 1.2.170. The bus interface also differs: the MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the R9 M275X uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350, with 1.879 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the AMD Radeon R9 M275X’s 1,184.0 GFLOPS. The MX350 also has a higher texture rate (46.98 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (23.49 GPixel/s) compared to the AMD card’s 37.00 GTexel/s and 14.80 GPixel/s.

Q: Why does the AMD Radeon R9 M275X win in OpenCL if it has lower compute?

A: The OpenCL benchmark favors memory bandwidth and texture throughput. The R9 M275X has a 128-bit memory bus delivering 72.00 GB/s, compared to the MX350’s 64-bit bus at 56.06 GB/s. It also has 40 TMUs versus 32 on the MX350, which helps in texture-bound OpenCL workloads despite lower raw FP32.

Q: What is the difference in Vulkan API support?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon R9 M275X supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX350’s newer Vulkan implementation is reflected in its 31.2% higher Vulkan benchmark score (13,077 vs 9,964).

Q: Are these GPUs in the same performance class?

A: Yes, both sit at the 49th percentile among all GPUs. Their average benchmark scores are 10,883 for the MX350 and 10,582 for the R9 M275X, a difference of roughly 2.8%. Their nearest rivals overlap, with the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 appearing in both lists.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 uses a 14 nm process from Samsung, while the AMD Radeon R9 M275X uses a 28 nm process from TSMC. The MX350 also has higher transistor density at 25.0M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm².

Q: What are the memory clock speeds?

A: The MX350 runs memory at 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the R9 M275X runs at 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Despite the lower clock, the AMD card’s wider 128-bit bus gives it higher total bandwidth.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX350 | AMD Radeon R9 M275X |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 3,300 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 132 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.0M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1354 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1468 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps) |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 72.00 GB/s |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.49 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.98 GTexel/s | 37.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.879 TFLOPS | 1,184.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 29.36 GFLOPS | null |

| TDP | 20 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2020-02-09 | 2014-01-27 |

| Predecessor | null | Solar System |

| Successor | null | Polaris Mobile |

The Verdict

Choose the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 if your priority is Vulkan-based workloads or modern graphics APIs. It delivers a 31.2% higher Vulkan score, a newer Vulkan 1.4 implementation, and over 1.5x the FP32 compute of the AMD card. Its 14 nm process and higher clock speeds (1,468 MHz boost) make it the more efficient and future-proof option for gaming or graphics applications that leverage Vulkan.

Choose the AMD Radeon R9 M275X if your workload is heavily dependent on OpenCL compute or memory bandwidth. Its OpenCL score of 11,200 beats the MX350 by 22.4%, and its 128-bit memory bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth provides a substantial advantage in memory-bound tasks. The extra 8 TMUs also help in texture-heavy compute scenarios.

The data does not support a single overall winner. The MX350 wins in Vulkan and raw compute throughput, while the R9 M275X wins in OpenCL and bandwidth. Both cards sit at the same 49th percentile, and their average scores differ by only 2.8%. For most users, the MX350’s newer architecture and higher clock speeds make it the better all-rounder, but the R9 M275X remains a valid choice for OpenCL-specific applications. The tie in head-to-head wins (1-1) is the honest verdict: pick based on your API, not on brand.