AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database places these two mobile GPUs in completely different performance tiers. The AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT wins both recorded head-to-head tests, with a 761.7% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL and a 112.5% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan. The data shows no test where the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 comes out ahead.

For users choosing between them, the decision rests on workload and system context. The RX 7600M XT is the clear choice for any compute-heavy or graphics-intensive task, as its raw throughput numbers dwarf the MX350 across every measured category. The MX350, however, draws only 20 W compared to 120 W for the AMD part, making it suitable for thin-and-light notebooks where power draw is the primary constraint. The RX 7600M XT sits at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, while the MX350 sits at the 49th percentile, meaning both are mid-pack performers overall, but the gap between them within that range is enormous.

The AMD part is the only one with active production status; the NVIDIA part is end-of-life. Anyone purchasing new hardware today should default to the RX 7600M XT unless the host system physically cannot accommodate a 120 W GPU. The MX350 remains viable only for legacy systems or ultra-low-power designs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 6 nm process. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 uses the GP107S chip built on the older Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. This process gap explains much of the performance difference: the AMD chip packs 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip contains 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, with a density of 25.0 million per mm². The AMD part has roughly four times the transistor count on only 54% more die area.

The compute resources differ by similar margins. The RX 7600M XT has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores at all. The AMD GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the NVIDIA GPU supports DirectX 12 (12_1), meaning the AMD part includes features from the higher tier of the DirectX 12 specification. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The memory subsystems reflect the same hierarchy. The RX 7600M XT uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX350 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 56.06 GB/s. The AMD part has four times the memory capacity and roughly five times the memory bandwidth. The AMD GPU also uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the NVIDIA GPU uses PCIe 3.0 x4, which further limits data transfer rates for the older part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains two tests, and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD part scores 74,869 against the MX350's 8,689, a delta of 761.7%. This is not a marginal win; the AMD GPU delivers more than eight times the OpenCL compute performance. In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD part scores 27,793 against 13,077, a delta of 112.5%. The Vulkan gap, while still large, is smaller than the OpenCL gap, suggesting the MX350's Pascal architecture handles Vulkan workloads relatively better than OpenCL, though it still loses by more than double.

The broader benchmark database reinforces the head-to-head results. The RX 7600M XT has an average benchmark score of 12,710 across all recorded tests, while the MX350 averages 10,883. The AMD part's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (average score 12,773, delta -0.5%), the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (average score 12,625, delta 0.7%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (average score 12,830, delta -0.9%), and the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (average score 12,831, delta -0.9%). The MX350's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (average score 10,804, delta 0.7%), the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (average score 10,761, delta 1.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (average score 11,047, delta -1.5%), and the AMD Radeon RX 550 (average score 11,075, delta -1.7%). These rival comparisons show that the RX 7600M XT competes with desktop-class GPUs from several generations ago, while the MX350 sits closer to entry-level mobile parts.

The RX 7600M XT also records scores in additional tests that the MX350 has no data for: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 2,048, PassMark DirectX 10 at 76, DirectX 11 at 137, DirectX 12 at 58, DirectX 9 at 175, G2D at 894, G3D at 13,907, and GPU compute at 7,140. The MX350 has no recorded scores for any PassMark or 3DMark tests in the database, which limits direct comparison to the two Geekbench tests available.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT scores 74,869 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 8,689 for the NVIDIA GeForce MX350, a 761.7% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the MX350. The AMD part wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing hardware?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT has ray tracing cores, with 32 of them. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. The AMD part also has a 128-bit bus versus 64-bit, and bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has a TDP of 20 W, versus 120 W for the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT. That is a six-fold difference in power draw.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. The AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT has an active production status, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT wins in every benchmark category where both have recorded data. Its advantages are most pronounced in compute-heavy workloads: the OpenCL score of 74,869 is more than eight times the MX350's 8,689, indicating a massive lead in general-purpose GPU compute tasks such as rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference. The Vulkan score of 27,793 versus 13,077 shows a 112.5% lead in graphics API performance, which translates to better frame rates in Vulkan-based games and applications. The AMD part also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which includes features like ray tracing (32 dedicated cores) that the MX350 cannot handle at all. With 8 GB of memory versus 2 GB, the RX 7600M XT can handle larger textures, higher resolutions, and more complex scenes without running out of video memory.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 wins only in power efficiency. Its 20 W TDP is one-sixth of the AMD part's 120 W, making it suitable for ultra-portable laptops where battery life and cooling are the primary concerns. The MX350 also uses PCIe 3.0 x4, which is a simpler and less power-hungry interface than PCIe 4.0 x16, though this comes at a performance cost. The MX350's 14 nm process node is older and less efficient than the AMD part's 6 nm node, but the much lower transistor count and clock speeds keep power draw minimal. For users whose workloads are limited to light productivity, basic video playback, or legacy DirectX 9/11 games, the MX350 provides adequate performance while preserving system battery life.

The production status difference matters here. The RX 7600M XT is actively produced and will receive ongoing driver support. The MX350 is end-of-life, meaning no new devices will ship with it, and long-term driver updates are uncertain. The data favors the AMD part for any user who values future-proofing or performance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT | NVIDIA GeForce MX350 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 6 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1280 MHz | 1354 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2469 MHz | 1468 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 56.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 640 |

| TMUs | 128 | 32 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 32 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 158.0 GPixel/s | 23.49 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 316.0 GTexel/s | 46.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 20.23 TFLOPS | 1.879 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 40.45 TFLOPS (2:1) | 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 120 W | 20 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2020-02-09 |

The clock speeds present an interesting inversion. The MX350 has a higher base clock (1354 MHz versus 1280 MHz), but the RX 7600M XT has a substantially higher boost clock (2469 MHz versus 1468 MHz). The AMD part's game clock is listed at 2023 MHz, a figure the NVIDIA part has no equivalent for. The transistor density difference is stark: the RX 7600M XT packs 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter, versus 25.0 million for the MX350, reflecting the two-generation process node advantage. The FP16 performance gap is especially pronounced: the AMD part delivers 40.45 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the MX350 delivers only 29.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, a difference of more than three orders of magnitude. This makes the RX 7600M XT dramatically better suited for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic.