NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 scores 9294 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 scores 8689 points. The GTX 465 leads by 6.5% in this workload, which is a modest but clear margin. This result is notable because the two cards come from very different generations and design philosophies: the GTX 465 is a desktop-oriented Fermi part from 2010, while the MX350 is a Pascal-based mobile GPU from 2020. Despite the decade gap in release timing, the older card still manages to outperform the newer one in this compute-oriented benchmark.

Looking at the broader database context, the MX350's average benchmark score is 10883, which places it in the 49th percentile of all GPUs. The GTX 465, by contrast, has an average score of 9294 and sits in the 46th percentile. That means the MX350 actually holds a wider overall edge in the database's aggregate scoring, even though it loses the single head-to-head OpenCL test. The discrepancy between the head-to-head result and the average scores suggests that the MX350 performs better in other workloads, particularly Vulkan. The MX350 records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 13077, a figure that has no direct counterpart for the GTX 465 in the database, as no Vulkan result is recorded for the older card.

The MX350's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Pro 450, which trails by 0.7%, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2200, which trails by 1.1%. On the other side, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER leads the MX350 by 1.5%, and the AMD Radeon RX 550 leads by 1.7%. These tight deltas show that the MX350 sits in a competitive cluster of GPUs, with all four nearest rivals within roughly two percentage points of its average score. The GTX 465's nearest rivals are similarly close: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M trails by 0.1%, the AMD Radeon R7 M380 trails by 0.2%, and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 trails by 0.8%. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 leads the GTX 465 by just 0.2%. This clustering suggests the GTX 465 occupies a narrow band of performance around the 9300-point mark.

The 6.5% delta in the OpenCL test is larger than most of the deltas between these cards and their nearest rivals, which means it is a meaningful difference in that specific workload. However, the MX350's Vulkan score of 13077 is well above its own OpenCL score, indicating that its architectural strengths show up more clearly in Vulkan-based applications. The GTX 465 has no Vulkan support recorded in the database, so any comparison in that API is not possible with the available data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9294 against the MX350's 8689, a delta of 6.5%.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall database percentile ranking?

A: The MX350 ranks in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 465 ranks in the 46th percentile. The MX350 also has a higher average benchmark score of 10883 compared to the GTX 465's 9294.

Q: Does the MX350 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the MX350 records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 13077 and lists Vulkan 1.4 API support. The GTX 465 has no Vulkan score in the database and does not list Vulkan support.

Q: What is the closest rival to the MX350 in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 is the closest rival, with an average score of 10804, just 0.7% below the MX350's 10883.

Q: What is the closest rival to the GTX 465 in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M is the closest rival, with an average score of 9302, just 0.1% below the GTX 465's 9294.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The MX350 has a pixel rate of 23.49 GPixel/s, which is higher than the GTX 465's 13.38 GPixel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The MX350 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP107S chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process by Samsung. The GTX 465 uses the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip, manufactured on a 40 nm process by TSMC. The process node difference is substantial: 14 nm versus 40 nm, which explains the dramatic difference in transistor density. The MX350 packs 3,300 million transistors onto a die size of 132 mm², resulting in a density of 25.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 465 has 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die, yielding a density of only 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. This means the MX350 achieves over four times the transistor density of the GTX 465.

The memory subsystems also differ significantly. The MX350 uses a 64-bit memory bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 465 uses a 256-bit bus with 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory. Despite the narrower bus, the MX350's memory runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), whereas the GTX 465's memory runs at 802 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The GTX 465 still achieves higher memory bandwidth at 102.7 GB/s compared to the MX350's 56.06 GB/s, thanks to its much wider bus.

The compute architectures differ in core composition. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 465 has 352 shading units, 44 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Interestingly, the GTX 465 has more TMUs and ROPs despite having fewer shading units, which reflects the different balance of resources in Fermi versus Pascal. The MX350 does not support ray tracing or tensor cores, and neither does the GTX 465.

API support differs as well. The MX350 lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 465 lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan support is recorded. This means the MX350 offers a more modern API feature set, particularly with Vulkan support and a higher DirectX feature level.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The MX350 has a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1468 MHz, while the GTX 465 has no base or boost clock listed in the database. The MX350's memory clock is 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), compared to the GTX 465's 802 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). Memory capacity differs: 2 GB on the MX350 versus 1024 MB on the GTX 465. Bus width is 64-bit on the MX350 versus 256-bit on the GTX 465. Bandwidth is 56.06 GB/s versus 102.7 GB/s.

Shading units: 640 versus 352. TMUs: 32 versus 44. ROPs: 16 versus 32. Pixel rate: 23.49 GPixel/s versus 13.38 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 46.98 GTexel/s versus 26.75 GTexel/s. FP32 performance: 1.879 TFLOPS versus 855.4 GFLOPS. The MX350 also has an FP16 rating of 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64), while no FP16 figure is recorded for the GTX 465.

Power characteristics differ dramatically. The MX350 has a TDP of 20 W and requires no power connectors. The GTX 465 has a TDP of 200 W, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and carries a suggested PSU rating of 550 W. The GTX 465 is a dual-slot card with a length of 241 mm (9.5 inches), while the MX350 has no slot width or dimensions recorded and uses portable device dependent display outputs. The GTX 465 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs.

Bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX350 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the GTX 465. The MX350 was released on 2020-02-09, while the GTX 465 was released on 2010-05-30. The GTX 465 has a recorded predecessor (GeForce 200) and successor (GeForce 500), while the MX350 has neither. The GTX 465 has a launch MSRP of 279 USD. Both cards are marked as end-of-life in production status. The GTX 465's generation is "GeForce 400", while the MX350's generation is "GeForce MX (3xx)".

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 465 wins in the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 6.5% advantage. This suggests that in OpenCL compute workloads, the older Fermi card retains a measurable edge. The GTX 465 also offers significantly higher memory bandwidth at 102.7 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s, which may benefit memory-intensive workloads. Its wider 256-bit bus and larger ROP count (32 versus 16) could also favor certain rendering tasks that rely on fill rate and memory throughput. The GTX 465's higher texture rate, however, is actually lower than the MX350's, so texture-heavy workloads would not favor it. The GTX 465's advantage is primarily in the OpenCL benchmark and raw memory bandwidth.

The MX350 wins in several other categories. Its average benchmark score of 10883 is higher than the GTX 465's 9294, and it sits in the 49th percentile versus the GTX 465's 46th. The MX350's Vulkan score of 13077 shows strong performance in that API, which the GTX 465 cannot match due to lack of Vulkan support. The MX350 also delivers much higher FP32 compute at 1.879 TFLOPS versus 855.4 GFLOPS, more than double the GTX 465's floating-point throughput. Its pixel rate of 23.49 GPixel/s is higher than the GTX 465's 13.38 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 46.98 GTexel/s exceeds the GTX 465's 26.75 GTexel/s.

In terms of efficiency, the MX350 is in a different class entirely. Its 20 W TDP is one-tenth of the GTX 465's 200 W TDP, and it requires no power connectors while the GTX 465 needs two 6-pin connectors and a 550 W PSU. The MX350's 14 nm process and much higher transistor density (25.0M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm²) make it a far more modern and power-efficient design. It also offers more memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1024 MB, a higher memory clock, and a more modern API set including Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1) versus DirectX 12 (11_0).

For users prioritizing OpenCL compute performance and memory bandwidth, the GTX 465 is the stronger choice based on the recorded data. For users who need Vulkan support, higher FP32 throughput, lower power draw, or a smaller physical footprint, the MX350 is clearly superior. The MX350's higher average score and percentile ranking also indicate better overall database performance, despite losing the single direct OpenCL comparison. In practical terms, the MX350 is better suited to modern workloads and efficiency-sensitive environments, while the GTX 465 holds a narrow but real advantage in the specific OpenCL test recorded.