AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT and NVIDIA GeForce MX350 occupy entirely different tiers of the graphics market, and the benchmark data confirms a decisive performance gulf. The RX 6500 XT, a discrete desktop card from the Radeon RX 6000 series, delivers multi-generational leaps in raw compute and API performance over the MX350, which is a low-power mobile chip from NVIDIA's Pascal era. While both are end-of-life products, the data shows the RX 6500 XT holds a commanding lead in every shared metric, though the MX350's ultra-low power draw and portable-device focus present a different use case entirely.

FAQ

Q: How large is the performance gap between the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 in compute benchmarks?

A: The RX 6500 XT is dramatically faster. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 48,289 versus 8,689 for the MX350, a 455.7% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6500 XT scores 54,724 compared to 13,077, which is a 318.5% lead.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RX 6500 XT has an average benchmark score of 11,842, while the MX350 averages 10,883. The RX 6500 XT sits at the 51st percentile of all GPUs, while the MX350 is at the 49th percentile.

Q: Do both cards support modern graphics APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan?

A: No. The RX 6500 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The MX350 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, meaning it lacks the full DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set.

Q: What are the key memory specifications that separate these two cards?

A: The RX 6500 XT has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 143.9 GB/s bandwidth. The MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, with just 56.06 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card consumes significantly less power?

A: The MX350 has a TDP of 20 W and requires no power connectors. The RX 6500 XT has a TDP of 107 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Is the MX350 capable of hardware ray tracing?

A: No. The MX350 has no RT cores listed, while the RX 6500 XT includes 16 ray accelerators (RT cores) for hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, using the Navi 24 chip fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 uses the older Pascal architecture with the GP107S chip, built on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It houses 3,300 million transistors on a larger 132 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 25.0 million per mm².

The core configurations differ substantially. The RX 6500 XT packs 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). It also includes 16 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the MX350, which has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This structural disparity explains why the RX 6500 XT achieves a pixel rate of 90.08 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 180.2 GTexel/s, versus just 23.49 GPixel/s and 46.98 GTexel/s for the MX350.

Compute throughput tells a similar story. The RX 6500 XT delivers 5.765 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 11.53 TFLOPS of FP16 (at a 2:1 ratio). The MX350 manages only 1.879 TFLOPS of FP32 and a meager 29.36 GFLOPS of FP16, at a steep 1:64 ratio. The memory subsystem also diverges: the RX 6500 XT uses 4 GB of GDDR6 at 18 Gbps effective, while the MX350 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 at 7 Gbps effective. Both use a 64-bit bus, but the RX 6500 XT's bandwidth of 143.9 GB/s more than doubles the MX350's 56.06 GB/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT wins both shared benchmarks outright, and the margin is enormous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6500 XT scores 48,289 against the MX350's 8,689. That is a delta of 455.7%, meaning the AMD card is over five and a half times faster in raw compute throughput for OpenCL workloads. This result aligns with the architectural advantages—more shading units, higher clocks, and faster memory—but the sheer magnitude of the lead underscores how far apart these two products are in intended performance class.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows slightly in percentage terms but remains overwhelming. The RX 6500 XT posts 54,724 points, while the MX350 manages 13,077. The delta here is 318.5%, still more than a four-fold difference. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can sometimes benefit older architectures due to reduced overhead, but the Pascal-based MX350 cannot overcome the fundamental deficit in shading units (640 vs 1,024), texture units (32 vs 64), and memory bandwidth (56.06 GB/s vs 143.9 GB/s). The RX 6500 XT's superior fill rates and FP32 compute make it the clear winner in both API environments.

It is worth remembering the MX350 only has two benchmark results in the data set, while the RX 6500 XT has ten. This means the average benchmark scores are not directly comparable, as the RX 6500 XT includes additional tests like 3DMark Steel Nomad (235 points) and multiple Passmark tests (ranging from 38 to 9,608 points). However, for the tests where both cards have results, the RX 6500 XT wins decisively, and its overall percentile ranking (51st vs 49th) reflects its stronger standing in the broader GPU landscape.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals stark contrasts beyond raw performance. The RX 6500 XT has a base clock of 2310 MHz and a boost clock of 2815 MHz, with a game clock of 2610 MHz. The MX350 runs at a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1468 MHz, with no game clock specified. Memory clock speeds also differ: the RX 6500 XT runs at 2248 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the MX350 runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

Power requirements are a major differentiator. The RX 6500 XT has a TDP of 107 W, a dual-slot design, and needs a 1x 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The MX350 has a TDP of just 20 W, requires no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU rating. The bus interface also differs: the RX 6500 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x4, while the MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. Display outputs are another point of divergence—the RX 6500 XT offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the MX350's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its laptop-oriented design.

Process node and foundry are also distinct. The RX 6500 XT is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, whereas the MX350 uses a 14 nm process at Samsung. This contributes to the AMD card's higher transistor density (50.5M/mm² vs 25.0M/mm²) despite having fewer total transistors. The API support differs as well: the RX 6500 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the MX350 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6500 XT also has a listed launch MSRP of 199 USD, while the MX350 has no launch MSRP field.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for desktop users: the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT is categorically superior to the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 in every measurable performance metric. It offers 455.7% higher OpenCL scores, 318.5% higher Vulkan scores, and more than double the memory bandwidth. It also supports modern features like ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate, which the MX350 lacks entirely. For anyone building a system that will handle gaming, content creation, or compute tasks, the RX 6500 XT is the only viable option from this pairing.

However, the MX350 is not without its niche. Its 20 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it suitable for ultra-portable laptops where battery life and thermals are paramount. Its "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs confirm it is designed for integrated mobile solutions, not standalone desktop cards. The MX350's average benchmark score of 10,883 places it in the 49th percentile, and its nearest rivals are low-power workstation and entry-level parts like the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (0.7% ahead) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (1.1% ahead). This suggests it holds its own among other low-power chips, but it cannot compete with the RX 6500 XT, which trades blows with far stronger cards like the GTX 1080 (1% behind) and GTX 1660 (1.4% ahead).

In summary, the verdict depends entirely on the form factor. Desktop and high-performance laptop users should choose the RX 6500 XT without hesitation, as it delivers multi-fold performance gains and richer feature support. The MX350 remains relevant only for ultra-low-power, portable devices where its 20 W TDP and compact footprint are the primary selling points. There is no scenario in the data where the MX350 outperforms the RX 6500 XT, so the decision rests on whether power efficiency or raw performance takes priority.