NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes a single direct comparison between these two cards in Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 posts a score of 13,300, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 scores 8,689. That is a 53.1% advantage for the older, desktop-class GTX 480. In this specific test, the GTX 480 wins decisively, and the MX350 has no counter-win in the direct head-to-head.

Looking at the broader database context, the GTX 480 sits at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 13,300. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 555X at 13,321 (0.2% slower), the AMD FirePro M6100 at 13,354 (0.4% slower), and the AMD Radeon RX 5500M at 13,356 (0.4% slower). These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, meaning the GTX 480 is essentially tied with these mobile and workstation parts in OpenCL compute. It is not a dramatic leader in its own tier; it holds its ground with a razor-thin margin.

The MX350, by contrast, averages 10,883 across its two recorded benchmark runs (OpenCL and Vulkan). Its percentile is 49, which places it just below the halfway mark of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 at 10,804 (0.7% faster than the MX350), the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 at 10,761 (1.1% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER at 11,047 (1.5% slower), and the AMD Radeon RX 550 at 11,075 (1.7% slower). The MX350 is competitive with these parts, but the GTX 480 is not among them. The gap between the two cards is far larger than any of these intra-tier differences.

The OpenCL result is the only head-to-head metric available, and it is one-sided. The GTX 480 leads by more than half, which is a substantial margin for any compute workload that relies on OpenCL. The MX350 does have a Vulkan score of 13,077 in its own record, but the GTX 480 has no Vulkan result in the database, so no direct comparison exists for that API. Without that data point, the OpenCL delta stands as the only measurable performance relationship between the two.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 480 wins the only shared benchmark outright. In OpenCL compute, it outperforms the MX350 by 53.1%, which is a large enough difference to matter for any task that scales with raw shader throughput. The GTX 480 has 480 shading units and a 384-bit memory bus, delivering 177.4 GB/s of bandwidth. That combination is well suited for memory-heavy compute workloads such as rendering, physics simulations, or data processing in OpenCL frameworks. Its pixel rate is 21.03 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 42.06 GTexel/s, both of which are respectable for its era.

The MX350, however, is not without its strengths, even if they do not appear in the direct benchmark. It has a higher shading unit count at 640, and its boost clock reaches 1,468 MHz. Its FP32 compute is rated at 1.879 TFLOPS, which is higher than the GTX 480's 1,345.0 GFLOPS on paper. Yet the OpenCL score tells a different story, likely because the GTX 480's memory bandwidth (177.4 GB/s vs. 56.06 GB/s) and wider bus (384-bit vs. 64-bit) give it a decisive advantage in real-world compute tasks that are not purely arithmetic. The MX350's 2 GB of VRAM is larger than the GTX 480's 1536 MB, which could help in workloads that need more capacity, but the GTX 480's bandwidth is three times higher.

For gaming or graphics workloads, the MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 480 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. That means the MX350 has a clear feature advantage for modern APIs. Its power draw is also dramatically lower at 20 W vs. 250 W, making it suitable for thin laptops with no external power connectors, whereas the GTX 480 requires a 600 W suggested PSU and dual-slot cooling. So, where the GTX 480 wins on raw OpenCL throughput, the MX350 wins on efficiency, portability, and modern API compatibility.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 480 uses the GF100 chip on the Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a die size of 529 mm², yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. This is a large, power-hungry desktop chip from 2010. Its memory subsystem is GDDR5 over a 384-bit bus, delivering 177.4 GB/s. The card has 60 texture mapping units and 48 render output units. Its shading unit count is 480.

The MX350 uses the GP107S chip on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It contains 3,300 million transistors, slightly more than the GTX 480, but on a much smaller die: 132 mm². That gives it a transistor density of 25.0 million per square millimeter, over four times higher. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Its memory is also GDDR5 but over a 64-bit bus, with 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The base clock is 1,354 MHz with a boost of 1,468 MHz, while the GTX 480's clocks are not listed in the database.

The GTX 480's FP32 output is 1,345.0 GFLOPS, while the MX350 reaches 1.879 TFLOPS, meaning the newer card has higher theoretical compute. The MX350 also lists FP16 at 29.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, whereas the GTX 480 has no FP16 figure. In terms of API support, the GTX 480 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan. The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MX350 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the GTX 480 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The MX350 is a mobile-oriented chip with no power connectors and a 20 W TDP, while the GTX 480 is a desktop card with a 250 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, and 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors.

The GTX 480's display outputs are two DVI and one mini-HDMI 1.3a. The MX350's outputs are described as portable device dependent. The GTX 480 measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length; the MX350 has no listed dimensions. The GTX 480 was released on 2010-03-25, while the MX350 came out on 2020-02-09. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The GTX 480 scores 13,000, which is 53.1% ahead of the MX350's 8,689 in OpenCL.

Q: Does the MX350 outperform the GTX 480 in any direct benchmark?

A: No, the MX350 wins zero head-to-head benchmarks, while the GTX 480 wins one out of one. The MX350 does have a Vulkan score of 13,000, but the GTX 480 has no Vulkan result in the database, so a direct comparison is unavailable.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 480 offers 177.0 GB/s over a 384-bit bus, while the MX350 provides 56.0 GB/s over a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan 1.4?

A: The MX350 lists Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 480 has no Vulkan API support in the database.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The MX350 has a TDP of 20 W and no power connectors, while the GTX 480 has a 250 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin setup with a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute?

A: The MX350 is rated at 1.879 TFLOPS, which is higher than the GTX 480's 1,345.0 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the transistor density difference to the GTX 480's die?

A: The MX350 has 25.0M / mm², while the GTX 480 has 5.9M / mm² on a 529 mm² die.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the GTX 480 is the stronger compute performer in OpenCL, beating the MX350 by 53.1%. Anyone needing raw OpenCL throughput for legacy applications or memory-bandwidth-heavy tasks should favor the GTX 480, despite its age and high power draw. The GTX 480 sits at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, tied with the AMD Radeon RX 5500M within 0.4%, which is a respectable position for a 2010 card.

The MX350 is the better choice for modern software environments. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which the GTX 480 cannot match. Its 2 GB of memory is larger, its FP32 compute is higher, and its 20 W TDP makes it feasible in laptops without external power. At the 49th percentile, it is a mid-tier part, comparable to the AMD Radeon Pro 450 and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 within about 1%. It is not a performance king, but it offers efficiency and API coverage that the GTX 480 simply does not have.

There is no universal winner. The GTX 480 wins the only head-to-head test, but the MX350 wins on features, power, and portability. If the workload is fixed to OpenCL and performance is the only metric, the GTX 480 is the pick. If the system needs to run modern Vulkan titles or operate on battery power, the MX350 is the only sensible option. The database records one clear benchmark victory for the GTX 480, but the MX350's architectural advantages make it the more versatile card for current usage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 | NVIDIA GeForce MX350 |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | Pascal |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1354 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1468 MHz |

| Memory Size | 1536 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 56.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 480 | 640 |

| TMUs | 60 | 32 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 21.03 GPixel/s | 23.49 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 42.06 GTexel/s | 46.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,345.0 GFLOPS | 1.879 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 250 W | 20 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Not listed |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | Not listed | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2010-03-25 | 2020-02-09 |

| Launch MSRP | 499 USD | Not listed |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 13300 | 8689 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 13300 | 10883 |

| Percentile vs. All GPUs | 53 | 49 |