AMD Radeon RX 5500M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers two cross-platform compute workloads: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the AMD Radeon RX 5500M dominates decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5500M scores 38,725 against the GeForce MX350's 8,689. That is a delta of 345.7% in AMD's favor. To put that in perspective, the MX350 would need to more than quadruple its score to match the RX 5500M in this workload. This is not a marginal gap; it is a generational chasm in raw compute throughput.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though with a slightly narrower margin. The RX 5500M records 35,693, while the MX350 manages 13,077. The delta here is 172.9%, meaning AMD's part is roughly 2.7 times faster in this API. Both wins belong to the RX 5500M, giving it a clean 2-0 sweep in the available head-to-head tests.

The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy. The RX 5500M sits at 13,356, placing it in the 54th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The MX350 averages 10,883, which lands in the 49th percentile. The percentile difference is modest, but the raw score gap is about 22.7% in favor of AMD. The MX350's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (0.7% higher), the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (1.1% higher), and slightly faster parts like the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (1.5% higher) and Radeon RX 550 (1.7% higher). The RX 5500M's nearest neighbors are all tightly clustered within 0.4% of its score, including the AMD FirePro M6100, Radeon HD 8950M, Radeon Pro 555X, and Radeon Pro 555.

What the head-to-head numbers do not show is DirectX performance, since the database lacks a common DirectX benchmark for both parts. The RX 5500M has PassMark scores across DX9 (100), DX10 (39), DX11 (35), and DX12 (28), but no equivalent MX350 figures exist for comparison. The conclusion from the available data is unambiguous: in the two tests where both GPUs were measured, the RX 5500M is faster by a wide margin.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built on different process nodes. The RX 5500M uses AMD's RDNA 1.0 architecture on a 7 nm TSMC process, while the MX350 is a Pascal part fabricated on Samsung's 14 nm node. The process gap is substantial: 7 nm versus 14 nm means the AMD chip can pack far more transistors into a similar physical footprint.

The RX 5500M's die contains 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million per mm². The MX350 has 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, for a density of 25.0 million per mm². AMD's part is denser by roughly 62%, which is a direct consequence of the newer process technology. The die size difference is 26 mm² in AMD's favor, despite the RX 5500M carrying nearly twice the transistor count.

The compute resources reflect this architectural gap. The RX 5500M has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. In every category, AMD's part has more than double the hardware. The FP32 throughput is 4.632 TFLOPS for the RX 5500M versus 1.879 TFLOPS for the MX350, a 2.5x advantage. The FP16 numbers are even more lopsided: the RX 5500M delivers 9.265 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the MX350 is limited to 29.36 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. That is a difference of roughly 315x in favor of AMD, though the MX350's FP16 capability is clearly not designed for compute-heavy workloads.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The RX 5500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX350 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, with 56.06 GB/s. The bandwidth advantage for AMD is exactly 4x, and the memory capacity is double. The memory clocks are similar in base terms (1750 MHz versus 1752 MHz), but the effective data rates differ because of the memory type: 14 Gbps effective for the RX 5500M versus 7 Gbps for the MX350.

The bus interface also differs. The RX 5500M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. This gives AMD a wider and faster connection to the host system, which matters for data transfer in compute workloads. Both parts are portable-device dependent for display outputs, and neither has a power connector. The TDP figures are 85 W for the RX 5500M and 20 W for the MX350, a 65 W gap that explains the performance difference but also has thermal implications.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5500M wins in every measured category in the head-to-head data. It is faster in OpenCL and Vulkan compute, has more memory, higher bandwidth, more shading units, and newer architecture. The 345.7% OpenCL lead and the 172.9% Vulkan lead are not close calls; they are decisive victories.

The MX350's only advantages are in power consumption and physical size assumptions. At 20 W versus 85 W, the MX350 draws less than a quarter of the power. That makes it suitable for thin-and-light notebooks where thermal and battery constraints dominate. The RX 5500M requires a larger cooling solution and a more robust power delivery system, which typically means a bulkier chassis.

For gaming, the RX 5500M's higher pixel rate (52.64 GPixel/s versus 23.49 GPixel/s) and texture rate (144.8 GTexel/s versus 46.98 GTexel/s) indicate it can handle higher resolutions and more detailed textures. The MX350's lower rates suggest it is better suited for esports titles and older games at modest settings. The RX 5500M's 4 GB frame buffer is also more accommodating for modern game assets than the MX350's 2 GB.

For compute workloads, the RX 5500M is the clear choice. Its FP32 output is 2.5x higher, and its FP16 capability is in a completely different class. The MX350's FP16 ratio of 1:64 means it does not meaningfully accelerate half-precision workloads, while the RX 5500M's 2:1 ratio provides a 2x boost over its FP32 rate. The 4x bandwidth advantage also makes the RX 5500M better for memory-bound tasks.

For battery-sensitive productivity, the MX350 has a role. Its 20 W TDP allows it to run in devices that prioritize portability. The RX 5500M's 85 W TDP requires active cooling and a larger battery, which is why it appears in gaming laptops rather than ultraportables.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows every field where the two GPUs differ. The process node is 7 nm for AMD versus 14 nm for NVIDIA. Transistor count is 6,400 million versus 3,300 million. Die size is 158 mm² versus 132 mm². Transistor density is 40.5M per mm² versus 25.0M per mm².

The clock speeds differ across all measured fields. Base clock is 1375 MHz for AMD versus 1354 MHz for NVIDIA. Boost clock is 1645 MHz versus 1468 MHz. AMD also lists a game clock of 1448 MHz, which the MX350 does not have. Memory clock is 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective for AMD, versus 1752 MHz with 7 Gbps effective for NVIDIA.

Memory configuration is completely different: 4 GB GDDR6 on 128-bit for AMD, 2 GB GDDR5 on 64-bit for NVIDIA. Bandwidth is 224.0 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s. Shading units are 1408 versus 640. TMUs are 88 versus 32. ROPs are 32 versus 16.

Pixel rate is 52.64 GPixel/s versus 23.49 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 144.8 GTexel/s versus 46.98 GTexel/s. FP32 is 4.632 TFLOPS versus 1.879 TFLOPS. FP16 is 9.265 TFLOPS versus 29.36 GFLOPS. TDP is 85 W versus 20 W.

Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD versus PCIe 3.0 x4 for NVIDIA. The API support is identical: both list DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither part has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both are end-of-life products. The release dates differ: October 2019 for AMD, February 2020 for NVIDIA. The AMD part has a predecessor (Polaris Mobile), while the MX350 does not.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5500M scores 38,725 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 345.7% higher than the GeForce MX350's 8,689.

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

A: The RX 5500M records 35,693 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the MX350 scores 13,077. The AMD part leads by 172.9%.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The RX 5500M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The GeForce MX350 has a TDP of 20 W, compared to the RX 5500M's 85 W. This makes the MX350 more suitable for power-constrained laptops.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 5500M has an average benchmark score of 13,356, placing it in the 54th percentile. The MX350 averages 10,883, which is in the 49th percentile.