NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the decisive winner in this comparison, outperforming the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 by a massive margin in every shared benchmark. The data shows a 404.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 286.3% lead in Geekbench Vulkan, making the MX350 a non-competitive option for any task beyond basic acceleration. The GTX 1650 SUPER sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX350 trails closely at the 49th, yet their average benchmark scores (11047 vs 10883) obscure the fact that the only comparable tests show a chasm in raw performance.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 SUPER than the MX350 in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43875 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the MX350 scores 8689. That is a 404.9% advantage for the GTX 1650 SUPER.

Q: Does the MX350 win any benchmark against the GTX 1650 SUPER?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmarks, the GTX 1650 SUPER wins both tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan), giving it a 2-0 win record. The MX350 has zero wins.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 11047, which is 1.5% higher than the MX350's average score of 10883. The MX350's nearest rival list confirms this, showing a -1.5% deltaPct relative to the GTX 1650 SUPER.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER provides 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the MX350 provides only 56.06 GB/s. This is a direct result of the GTX 1650 SUPER using a 128-bit bus with GDDR6 memory versus the MX350's 64-bit bus with GDDR5.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: No. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses the Turing architecture (TU116 chip) on a 12 nm process, while the MX350 uses the Pascal architecture (GP107S chip) on a 14 nm process from Samsung.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1280 shading units, exactly double the 640 shading units found in the MX350. This doubling extends to texture mapping units (80 vs 32) and ROPs (32 vs 16).

Architecture Differences

The GTX 1650 SUPER and MX350 are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses the Turing architecture with the TU116 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 12 nm process. It contains 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 23.2M / mm². In contrast, the MX350 uses the older Pascal architecture with the GP107S chip, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. It contains 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, giving it a slightly higher transistor density of 25.0M / mm².

The compute configuration is where the gap becomes stark. The GTX 1650 SUPER packs 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The MX350 is exactly half of that in every category: 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This structural halving cascades into every performance metric. The GTX 1650 SUPER delivers a pixel rate of 55.20 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 138.0 GTexel/s, compared to the MX350's 23.49 GPixel/s and 46.98 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture reinforces the divide. The GTX 1650 SUPER features 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocks at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), yielding 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, with memory at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), yielding only 56.06 GB/s. Notably, the FP16 compute figures diverge wildly: the GTX 1650 SUPER achieves 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the MX350 achieves only 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), indicating the GTX 1650 SUPER has a much more capable half-precision pipeline.

Power and interface also differ. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, a 300 W suggested PSU, and uses a dual-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The MX350 draws only 20 W, has no power connectors, and uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a 229 mm long, 111 mm tall, 35 mm wide card, while the MX350 has no listed dimensions, being a portable-device-dependent component.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 SUPER dominates every measurable workload in this comparison. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, with a 404.9% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL and a 286.3% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan. These are not marginal wins; they represent a completely different performance class. The GTX 1650 SUPER's additional benchmarks show strong results across DirectX 9 (148 in Passmark), DirectX 11 (73), and G3D (10179), suggesting it can handle legacy and modern 3D workloads alike.

The MX350 does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head data. Its only listed benchmarks are Geekbench OpenCL (8689) and Geekbench Vulkan (13077), both of which it loses by enormous margins. The MX350's hardware profile—2 GB of GDDR5, 64-bit bus, half the shading units—indicates it is designed for basic display output and light acceleration, not for competitive gaming or compute. Its 20 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, but the data shows no performance scenario where it outpaces the GTX 1650 SUPER.

The GTX 1650 SUPER's wins extend to its broader benchmark portfolio. Its Passmark G3D score of 10179 and GPU compute score of 4477, while not directly comparable to MX350 data, place it in a tier that the MX350 cannot reach given its average score of 10883 is only 1.5% below the GTX 1650 SUPER's average—a statistical artifact of the sparse MX350 benchmark set, not a reflection of real-world parity. For gaming, rendering, or compute tasks, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the only viable choice.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses the Turing architecture on a 12 nm process (TU116 chip), while the MX350 uses Pascal on a 14 nm process (GP107S). Transistor counts are 6,600 million versus 3,300 million, and die sizes are 284 mm² versus 132 mm².

Clock speeds favor the GTX 1650 SUPER, with a base of 1530 MHz and boost of 1725 MHz, compared to the MX350's 1354 MHz base and 1468 MHz boost. Memory specifications are vastly different: the GTX 1650 SUPER has 4 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX350 has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks are 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the GTX 1650 SUPER versus 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the MX350.

Compute resources differ by exactly half: 1280 vs 640 shading units, 80 vs 32 TMUs, and 32 vs 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 55.20 GPixel/s versus 23.49 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 138.0 GTexel/s versus 46.98 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 4.416 TFLOPS versus 1.879 TFLOPS, and FP16 performance is 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64).

Power and physical specs are also dissimilar. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a 100 W TDP, dual-slot width, 1x 6-pin power connector, and 300 W suggested PSU, while the MX350 has a 20 W TDP, no slot width listed, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 1650 SUPER versus PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX350. Display outputs are discrete (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a) for the GTX 1650 SUPER, while the MX350 is listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The GTX 1650 SUPER was released on 2019-11-21 with a launch MSRP of 159 USD; the MX350 was released on 2020-02-09 with no launch MSRP listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the most lopsided result. The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43875, while the MX350 scores 8689. This is a 404.9% delta in favor of the GTX 1650 SUPER. To put it plainly, the GTX 1650 SUPER is over five times faster in this workload. This test measures general-purpose compute, which aligns with the GTX 1650 SUPER's 4.416 TFLOPS FP32 output versus the MX350's 1.879 TFLOPS — a 2.35x raw throughput gap that the memory bandwidth deficit (192.0 GB/s vs 56.06 GB/s) further exacerbates.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar story, though less extreme. The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50519, and the MX350 scores 13077. The delta is 286.3% in favor of the GTX 1650 SUPER. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics API, and the GTX 1650 SUPER's superior texture rate (138.0 GTexel/s vs 46.98 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (55.20 GPixel/s vs 23.49 GPixel/s) directly translate to higher frame throughput. The MX350's 64-bit memory bus becomes a severe bottleneck at higher resolutions, while the GTX 1650 SUPER's 128-bit bus with GDDR6 provides ample headroom.

The GTX 1650 SUPER's additional benchmark scores reinforce its dominance. Its Passmark G3D score is 10179, and its Passmark GPU compute score is 4477. Its DirectX 9 score of 148 and DirectX 11 score of 73 show strong legacy support. The MX350 has no comparable data in these tests, but given its 2 GB memory limit and halved compute units, it would be expected to fall far short. The average benchmark score differential (11047 vs 10883, a 1.5% gap) is misleading; it reflects the MX350's limited benchmark set rather than actual parity. When both are tested on the same workloads, the GTX 1650 SUPER wins by 286.3% to 404.9%.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior GPU in every measurable way. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 286.3% and 404.9%, has double the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, quadruple the memory bandwidth, and a more modern architecture on a smaller process node. The MX350's 49th percentile ranking versus the GTX 1650 SUPER's 50th percentile is the only close statistic, and it is an artifact of the MX350 having only two benchmark results.

For anyone choosing between these two, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the only option for any task involving 3D rendering, gaming, or compute acceleration. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth allow it to handle modern game textures, while the MX350's 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus would struggle with even modest settings. The GTX 1650 SUPER's 100 W TDP and dual-slot cooler make it a desktop component; the MX350's 20 W TDP and portable-device-dependent outputs make it a laptop part. They are not competitors in the same market segment.

The MX350's only advantage is power consumption: 20 W versus 100 W. That makes it suitable for thin laptops where a discrete GPU with a 6-pin connector is impossible. But the benchmark results show that this power efficiency comes at the cost of nearly all performance. The GTX 1650 SUPER is the clear pick for desktop users; the MX350 is merely a step up from integrated graphics, and its own rival list (AMD Radeon Pro 450, Quadro K2200) confirms it sits in a low-end workstation tier, not a gaming tier. There is no scenario in the data where the MX350 outperforms the GTX 1650 SUPER.