GPU Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 550 and NVIDIA GeForce MX350 are two end-of-life mobile and small-form-factor graphics solutions that target the entry-level segment, but the benchmark data reveals they take distinctly different approaches to performance. The RX 550, a 2017 Polaris part, and the MX350, a 2020 Pascal part, are separated by nearly three years of design philosophy. While the MX350 edges out a narrow win in one synthetic test, the RX 550 delivers a dominant victory in the other, making the choice between them entirely dependent on the specific workload a user prioritizes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the comparison is the OpenCL performance gap, where the AMD Radeon RX 550 decisively outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce MX350. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 550 scores 11,063 points compared to the MX350’s 8,689 points. This translates to a 27.3% advantage for the AMD part, a substantial margin that indicates a significant difference in raw compute throughput for general-purpose GPU workloads. The data suggests the RX 550’s architecture is far better suited to OpenCL compute tasks, likely due to its wider memory bus and higher memory bandwidth, which allows it to feed its 512 shading units more effectively.

However, the narrative flips when examining Vulkan performance, where the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 takes the lead. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the MX350 scores 13,077 points, while the RX 550 manages 12,270 points. The delta here is a narrower 6.2% in favor of the NVIDIA part. This result indicates that while the MX350 is behind in raw compute, its Pascal architecture handles the lower-level API overhead of Vulkan more efficiently, allowing it to pull ahead in graphics-centric tasks that rely on modern API features. The MX350’s higher base and boost clocks, 1354 MHz and 1468 MHz respectively versus the RX 550’s 1100 MHz and 1183 MHz, likely contribute to this win in latency-sensitive workloads.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the two GPUs are remarkably close overall. The RX 550 posts an average benchmark score of 11,075, while the MX350 sits just slightly behind at 10,883. This places the RX 550 at the 50th percentile of all GPUs and the MX350 at the 49th percentile, confirming they are direct competitors in the same performance tier. The head-to-head win count is tied at one win apiece, underscoring the balanced nature of the matchup. The RX 550’s nearest rival in the database is the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q with a negligible 0.1% difference in average score, while the MX350’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro 450, which it beats by 0.7%. Notably, the two cards are also listed as rivals to each other, with the RX 550 holding a 1.7% average score advantage over the MX350.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon RX 550 is the better choice for users whose primary workload involves OpenCL compute. The 27.3% lead in that specific test is too large to ignore, and for applications that leverage OpenCL for tasks like video encoding, physics simulation, or data processing, the RX 550 will deliver noticeably better performance. The card’s higher memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s, compared to the MX350’s 56.06 GB/s, provides a hardware-level advantage that directly translates into compute performance gains.

Conversely, the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is the more compelling option for users focused on Vulkan-based gaming or modern graphics APIs. Its 6.2% lead in the Vulkan test, combined with its significantly lower 20 W TDP versus the RX 550’s 50 W TDP, makes it a far more power-efficient solution. For a laptop or small-form-factor build where thermal headroom is critical, the MX350’s efficiency is a major practical advantage. The MX350 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, compared to the RX 550’s DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, giving it a slight edge in API feature compatibility.

The data does not support a universal winner. The RX 550 is the compute specialist, while the MX350 is the efficiency-focused graphics card. A user who prioritizes raw OpenCL throughput should select the RX 550, while a user who values Vulkan performance and lower power draw should choose the MX350. The average scores are close enough that the decision hinges entirely on the specific application mix.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 has a higher average benchmark score of 11,075, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce MX350’s score of 10,883. The RX 550 also holds a 1.7% advantage over the MX350 when they are compared directly in the nearest rivals list.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 is significantly faster in OpenCL, scoring 11,063 points versus the NVIDIA GeForce MX350’s 8,689 points. This gives the RX 550 a 27.3% performance lead in this specific test.

Q: Which GPU performs better in Vulkan applications?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 performs better in Vulkan, scoring 13,077 points compared to the AMD Radeon RX 550’s 12,270 points. This represents a 6.2% advantage for the MX350.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 has a memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has a memory bandwidth of 56.06 GB/s. The RX 550’s bandwidth is exactly double that of the MX350.

Q: Which GPU has a higher power consumption rating?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 has a TDP of 50 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has a TDP of 20 W. The MX350 consumes significantly less power.

Q: What is the difference in their transistor counts?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has 3,300 million transistors, while the AMD Radeon RX 550 has 2,200 million transistors. The MX350 contains 50% more transistors.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification, starting with the fundamental chip design. The AMD Radeon RX 550 is built on the Lexa chip using a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 uses the GP107S chip, also on a 14 nm process but fabricated by Samsung. The RX 550 has a transistor count of 2,200 million on a 103 mm² die, whereas the MX350 packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, resulting in a higher transistor density of 25.0M / mm² for the NVIDIA part versus 21.4M / mm² for the AMD.

Clock speeds show a clear advantage for the NVIDIA chip. The MX350 has a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1468 MHz, while the RX 550 operates at a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1183 MHz. Memory configurations also diverge significantly. The RX 550 features a 128-bit memory bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 running at 1750 MHz, delivering 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MX350 has a narrower 64-bit bus, also with 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1752 MHz, but only achieves 56.06 GB/s bandwidth.

The shading units favor the MX350 with 640 units, compared to the RX 550’s 512 units. Both have 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, but the higher clock speeds on the MX350 give it superior pixel and texture rates: 23.49 GPixel/s and 46.98 GTexel/s, versus the RX 550’s 18.93 GPixel/s and 37.86 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance follows suit, with the MX350 delivering 1.879 TFLOPS against the RX 550’s 1,211.4 GFLOPS. Power consumption is a major differentiator, with the MX350 rated at 20 W TDP versus the RX 550’s 50 W TDP. The RX 550 also has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the MX350 has none. The bus interface differs, with the RX 550 using PCIe 3.0 x8 and the MX350 using PCIe 3.0 x4. Display outputs are another point of contrast, as the RX 550 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the MX350’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational and philosophical. The AMD Radeon RX 550 is based on the GCN 4.0 architecture, part of the Polaris generation (RX 500). It is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 uses the Pascal architecture, belonging to the GeForce MX (3xx) generation, also fabricated on a 14 nm process but at Samsung. This difference in foundry and specific architecture design leads to distinct performance characteristics observed in the benchmarks.

The RX 550’s GCN 4.0 architecture is known for its compute-oriented design, which explains its dominant 27.3% lead in OpenCL performance. It features 512 shading units and a 128-bit memory interface, providing a wide data path that benefits compute workloads. The card supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Its FP16 performance is rated at 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), meaning it processes half-precision at the same rate as full-precision.

In contrast, the MX350’s Pascal architecture is a more refined graphics-focused design. Despite having fewer ROPs relative to its shading units, the higher clock speeds of 1468 MHz boost allow it to achieve better pixel and texture rates than the RX 550. The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, representing a newer API revision. Its FP16 performance is notably weak at 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), indicating that half-precision compute is heavily de-emphasized in this design. The card features 640 shading units and a narrower 64-bit memory bus, which limits memory bandwidth but contributes to its lower power draw of 20 W.

The transistor counts reflect the architectural differences. The MX350’s 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die is a denser, more complex design, while the RX 550’s 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die is simpler and more power-hungry per unit of performance. The RX 550’s predecessor is Arctic Islands and successor is Vega, while the MX350 has no listed predecessor or successor. The RX 550 was released on 2017-04-19 with a launch MSRP of 79 USD, while the MX350 followed on 2020-02-09 with no launch MSRP listed.