NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between these two NVIDIA parts, but the split favors the older card. In the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 560 scores 9058 versus 8689 for the MX350, a 4.1% advantage. The GTX 560 wins the head-to-head comparison outright, with one win and zero losses. The MX350 holds a higher overall percentile rank at 49 versus 45, and its average benchmark score of 10883 across two tests exceeds the GTX 560's single-test average of 9058. However, when directly compared on the same workload, the GTX 560 delivers the higher raw score.

The MX350's advantage appears in its newer architecture and efficiency profile. It is built on a 14 nm Samsung process, while the GTX 560 uses a 40 nm TSMC node. The MX350 draws 20 W, a stark contrast to the GTX 560's 150 W TDP. The GTX 560 requires two 6-pin power connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the MX350 uses no power connectors and is described as portable device dependent. This makes the MX350 the clear choice for thin, power-limited laptops, where the GTX 560 physically cannot fit or function.

The GTX 560 is the choice for raw compute in a desktop context, provided power and space are available. Its 256-bit memory bus delivers 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, more than double the MX350's 56.06 GB/s. It also has 32 ROPs versus 16, and 56 TMUs versus 32. The MX350 counters with 640 shading units versus 336, and a higher FP32 throughput of 1.879 TFLOPS versus 1,088.6 GFLOPS. The data indicates a tradeoff: the GTX 560 wins the actual measured OpenCL test, but the MX350's architectural efficiency and feature set suggest it handles modern workloads better, particularly those using DirectX 12_1 or Vulkan 1.4, which the GTX 560 lacks entirely. Users needing maximum compatibility with modern graphics APIs should select the MX350; users needing the higher measured compute score should select the GTX 560.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score in the shared test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 scores 9058 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 scores 8689. The GTX 560 leads by 4.1% in this specific test.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare across all recorded tests?

A: The MX350 has an average benchmark score of 10883, based on two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan). The GTX 560 has an average of 9058, based on its single OpenCL test. The MX350's average is higher because its Vulkan score of 13077 pulls the average up.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern graphics APIs?

A: The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 560 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support recorded in the database.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The MX350 has a TDP of 20 W and requires no power connectors. The GTX 560 has a TDP of 150 W, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 560 has a 256-bit memory bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MX350 has a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 560 provides more than double the bandwidth.

Q: How do their percentile rankings compare against all GPUs?

A: The MX350 sits at the 49th percentile, while the GTX 560 sits at the 45th percentile. The MX350 ranks slightly higher overall, despite losing the direct OpenCL comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations. The MX350 uses the Pascal architecture on the GP107S chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The GTX 560 uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture on the GF114 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This process gap is enormous: the MX350 packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 25.0M / mm². The GTX 560 contains 1,950 million transistors across a 332 mm² die, with a density of only 5.9M / mm². The MX350 crams roughly four times more transistors per square millimeter.

The shader configuration differs fundamentally. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 560 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MX350 has nearly double the shader count, while the GTX 560 has nearly double the ROP count and significantly more TMUs. This suggests the GTX 560 was designed for higher fill-rate workloads, while the MX350 leans toward compute-heavy shader work.

The MX350 supports newer API features, including DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 560 supports DirectX 12 at the older 11_0 feature level and has no Vulkan support recorded. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The MX350's Pascal architecture brings modern geometry processing and better scheduling, while Fermi 2.0 predates many of these optimizations.

The memory subsystems reflect their eras. The MX350 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, with 7 Gbps effective memory clock and 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 560 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 4 Gbps effective clock and 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 560's wider bus gives it the bandwidth advantage, but the MX350's smaller capacity may limit texture-heavy scenes. The MX350's memory clock is higher, but the bus width difference dominates.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The process node differs: 14 nm for the MX350 versus 40 nm for the GTX 560. The foundry differs as well: Samsung for the MX350, TSMC for the GTX 560. Transistor counts are 3,300 million versus 1,950 million, and die sizes are 132 mm² versus 332 mm². The MX350 has a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1468 MHz; the GTX 560 has no base or boost clocks recorded. Memory clocks are 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the MX350 versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the GTX 560.

Memory capacity is 2 GB versus 1024 MB, with bus widths of 64-bit versus 256-bit. Bandwidth is 56.06 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s. Shading units number 640 versus 336, TMUs 32 versus 56, and ROPs 16 versus 32. Pixel rates are 23.49 GPixel/s for the MX350 versus 11.34 GPixel/s for the GTX 560. Texture rates are 46.98 GTexel/s versus 45.36 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1.879 TFLOPS versus 1,088.6 GFLOPS. The MX350 has an FP16 rate of 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64), while the GTX 560 has no recorded FP16 performance.

Power requirements diverge sharply. The MX350 has a 20 W TDP with no power connectors. The GTX 560 has a 150 W TDP, dual-slot width, two 6-pin power connectors, and a 450 W suggested PSU. The bus interfaces also differ: PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX350 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the GTX 560. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the MX350, while the GTX 560 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. The GTX 560 has a physical length of 210 mm (8.3 inches). The MX350 has no recorded dimensions. The GTX 560 launched with an MSRP of 199 USD; the MX350 has no launch MSRP recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The GTX 560 scores 9058, and the MX350 scores 8689. The GTX 560 wins with a delta of 4.1%. This is a modest but clear margin. The MX350's closest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 at 10804 (0.7% behind the MX350's average), the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 at 10761 (1.1% behind), and the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER at 11047 (1.5% ahead). The GTX 560's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition at 9037 (0.2% behind), the GeForce GTX 660 at 9022 (0.4% behind), and the AMD Radeon 890M at 9210 (1.7% ahead). The GTX 560's OpenCL score places it just ahead of a TITAN V CEO Edition, which is notable given the massive generational gap.

Beyond the shared test, the MX350 has a second benchmark: Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 13077. This contributes to its average of 10883 and its 49th percentile ranking. The GTX 560 has no Vulkan score, so its average remains 9058 at the 45th percentile. The MX350's Vulkan result demonstrates a capability the GTX 560 simply does not possess in the recorded data.

The FP32 compute figures tell a different story from the OpenCL result. The MX350 delivers 1.879 TFLOPS, which is 72.6% higher than the GTX 560's 1,088.6 GFLOPS. Yet in the actual OpenCL benchmark, the GTX 560 wins. This discrepancy suggests the GTX 560's wider memory bus and higher bandwidth (128.0 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s) compensate for its lower theoretical compute. The GTX 560 also has double the ROPs (32 versus 16), which may help in memory-bound OpenCL workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 560 wins where raw memory throughput matters. Its 256-bit bus and 128.0 GB/s bandwidth give it a decisive edge in the OpenCL benchmark, where it beats the MX350 by 4.1%. The GTX 560 also has more TMUs (56 versus 32) and more ROPs (32 versus 16), which historically aids texture filtering and pixel output. For legacy desktop workloads that rely on bandwidth and fill rate, the GTX 560 is the stronger performer. Its 150 W TDP and dual-slot design are acceptable in a desktop tower with a 450 W PSU. The GTX 560 also has a recorded launch MSRP of 199 USD, which places it in the midrange desktop segment of its time.

The MX350 wins on efficiency and modern feature support. Its 20 W TDP means it can operate in portable devices with no power connectors. The MX350 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1, while the GTX 560 lacks Vulkan entirely and only reaches DirectX 11_0 features. The MX350's Vulkan score of 13077 demonstrates strong modern API performance. Its FP32 throughput of 1.879 TFLOPS is far higher than the GTX 560's 1,088.6 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate of 23.49 GPixel/s doubles the GTX 560's 11.34 GPixel/s. The MX350 also has a higher overall percentile rank (49 versus 45) and a higher average benchmark score (10883 versus 9058).

The choice depends on context. For a desktop user with power to spare and a need for the highest measured OpenCL score, the GTX 560 wins the head-to-head. For a laptop user or anyone needing modern API support, the MX350 is the only viable option. The MX350's transistor density of 25.0M / mm² versus the GTX 560's 5.9M / mm² reflects a fundamental design philosophy shift: the MX350 crams more compute into less space, trading bandwidth for efficiency. The GTX 560 uses a larger, older process to achieve bandwidth through a wide bus. Each card wins in the environment it was designed for, but the single shared benchmark gives the overall win to the GTX 560.