AMD Radeon RX 550X vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and AMD Radeon RX 550X are both end-of-life mobile and low-profile desktop GPUs that land in the 49th percentile of all graphics cards, meaning they sit squarely in entry-level territory. The MX350 averages 10,883 in Geekbench across OpenCL and Vulkan tests, while the RX 550X averages 10,481, a gap of roughly 3.8% in favor of the NVIDIA part. Despite their similar overall standing, the two cards have sharply contrasting strengths: the MX350 dominates in Vulkan workloads, while the RX 550X takes OpenCL, making the choice between them heavily dependent on the specific application or API being used.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is the clear winner in Vulkan-based applications, scoring 13,077 in Geekbench Vulkan compared to the RX 550X’s 11,299. That is a 15.7% advantage, a substantial margin for this performance class. Vulkan is a low-overhead API commonly used in modern game engines and compute workloads, so the MX350’s lead here suggests it is the better option for tasks that leverage this interface. This advantage also extends to its overall average benchmark score, which is 10,883 versus 10,481 for the AMD card, a 3.8% edge.

The AMD Radeon RX 550X takes the OpenCL crown, scoring 9,662 against the MX350’s 8,689. That is a 10.1% lead, and OpenCL remains widely used for general-purpose GPU computing, including video encoding, image processing, and scientific simulations. The RX 550X also brings a larger 4 GB memory buffer on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the MX350’s 2 GB on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bound or require more than 2 GB of video memory, the RX 550X has a structural advantage that the benchmark scores alone do not fully capture.

In terms of raw throughput, the MX350 has a higher FP32 rating at 1.879 TFLOPS versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS for the RX 550X, and it also leads in pixel rate (23.49 GPixel/s vs 18.93 GPixel/s) and texture rate (46.98 GTexel/s vs 37.86 GTexel/s). However, the RX 550X offers full-rate FP16 at 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1), while the MX350’s FP16 is a paltry 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64). For any FP16-heavy workload, the AMD card is dramatically faster.

The Verdict

The data suggests two distinct buyer profiles. If you prioritize Vulkan performance, the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is the unambiguous choice: its 15.7% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is the largest margin between the two cards in any benchmark. It is also the more power-efficient option, with a 20 W TDP versus the RX 550X’s 50 W, making it better suited for thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is tight. The MX350’s higher FP32 and texture rates further reinforce its edge in standard graphics rendering.

If your work leans on OpenCL, the AMD Radeon RX 550X is the better pick. Its 10.1% OpenCL lead, combined with 4 GB of memory and double the memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 56.06 GB/s), makes it more capable for compute tasks that are memory-hungry or that benefit from full-rate FP16. The RX 550X also has a dual-slot cooler and a 250 W suggested PSU, indicating it is designed for desktop systems where size and power draw are less constrained. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface also doubles the MX350’s x4 link, which can reduce transfer bottlenecks in data-heavy applications.

Neither card escapes the entry-level bracket; both sit at the 49th percentile of all GPUs. The MX350’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 550 (average 11,075, a 1.7% gap) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (average 11,047, a 1.5% gap), placing it just below those slightly faster parts. The RX 550X’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (average 10,362, a 1.2% gap) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (average 10,629, a 1.4% gap), showing it trades blows with a slightly wider field. For a user who needs one card for everything, the MX350’s higher average score and Vulkan advantage make it the safer default, but only if OpenCL is not a primary workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result in the head-to-head comparison is the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 scores 13,077 against the AMD Radeon RX 550X’s 11,299. The 15.7% delta is the largest single-benchmark gap between the two, and it is a clear statement about Vulkan efficiency. The MX350’s Pascal architecture appears to handle the API’s explicit control model more effectively, translating into a measurable performance lead that would be noticeable in Vulkan-based games or compute kernels.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the tables turn completely. The AMD Radeon RX 550X scores 9,662, while the MX350 trails at 8,689, a 10.1% deficit for NVIDIA. This result aligns with the RX 550X’s architectural strengths: GCN 4.0 was designed with compute in mind, and its 1:1 FP16 ratio (1,211.4 GFLOPS) is a massive advantage over the MX350’s 1:64 ratio (29.36 GFLOPS). OpenCL workloads that use half-precision math would see an enormous speedup on the AMD card.

Averaging the two tests, the MX350 comes out ahead with 10,883 versus 10,481, a 3.8% overall edge. But that average masks the split personality of these cards. The MX350’s Vulkan score is 50.5% higher than its OpenCL score, while the RX 550X’s two scores are much closer (11,299 vs 9,662, a 17% difference). This suggests the MX350 is more specialized, excelling in one API while being merely adequate in another, whereas the RX 550X offers more consistent performance across both. For a mixed workload, the RX 550X’s balance might be preferable, despite its lower peak.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350, with an average of 10,883 across Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, versus 10,481 for the AMD Radeon RX 550X.

Q: How much faster is the MX350 in Vulkan?

A: The MX350 scores 13,077 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 15.7% higher than the RX 550X’s 11,299.

Q: Does the RX 550X beat the MX350 in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the RX 550X wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with 9,662 points, a 10.1% advantage over the MX350’s 8,689.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth, while the RX 550X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The MX350 has a 20 W TDP, while the RX 550X is rated at 50 W, making the NVIDIA part significantly more power-efficient.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The MX350 is 1.5% slower than the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and 1.7% slower than the Radeon RX 550, while the RX 550X is 1.2% faster than the Radeon RX 6500M and 1.4% slower than the Radeon RX 6600S.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is built on the GP107S chip using the Pascal architecture on a 14 nm process from Samsung. It packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The GPU has 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. Its base clock is 1354 MHz with a boost of 1468 MHz, and memory runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and connects via a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface. It has no power connectors and a 20 W TDP, reflecting its mobile-oriented design. Its FP16 performance is severely limited at 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while FP32 reaches 1.879 TFLOPS.

The AMD Radeon RX 550X uses the Lexa chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, also on a 14 nm process but from GlobalFoundries. It contains 2,200 million transistors on a smaller 103 mm² die, with a lower transistor density of 21.4M per mm². The GPU features 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with base and boost clocks of 1100 MHz and 1183 MHz respectively. Memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The RX 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, and uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. It is a dual-slot card measuring 145 mm in length, with no power connectors but a suggested PSU of 250 W and a 50 W TDP. Notably, its FP16 performance is full-rate at 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1), matching its FP32 output.

The architectural split is stark. The MX350 has more shading units (640 vs 512), higher clocks, and superior pixel and texture rates, but it is hamstrung by a narrow 64-bit memory bus and minimal FP16 capability. The RX 550X counters with a 128-bit bus, double the memory size and bandwidth, full-rate FP16, and a wider PCIe link. The MX350’s Pascal architecture is newer in terms of feature support (Vulkan 1.4 vs 1.3, DirectX 12_1 vs 12_0), but the RX 550X’s GCN 4.0 design is fundamentally compute-oriented, which explains its OpenCL dominance. The transistor counts tell a similar story: NVIDIA uses 50% more transistors (3,300M vs 2,200M) to drive higher clock speeds and fill rates, while AMD allocates its silicon budget to memory and compute throughput.