NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a surprisingly close contest between two GPUs released seven years apart. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M and NVIDIA GeForce MX350 each take one benchmark win, and their average scores sit within 3.4% of each other. The GTX 780M dominates in OpenCL compute workloads, while the MX350 edges ahead in Vulkan. For legacy software and raw compute throughput, the GTX 780M is the stronger pick. For modern API compatibility and efficiency in a thin chassis, the MX350 makes more sense. The GTX 780M's 47% OpenCL advantage is decisive for GPU-accelerated tasks that rely on that API, but the MX350's Vulkan lead, though small at 2.9%, points to better optimization for current-generation game engines. The MX350 also fits in a 20 W envelope versus the GTX 780M's 122 W, making it the only realistic option for ultraportables, while the GTX 780M's MXM module design targets larger, upgradeable laptops.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M posts an average benchmark score of 11261, which is 3.4% higher than the MX350's 10883. Both sit near the middle of the database, with the GTX 780M at the 50th percentile and the MX350 at the 49th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The GTX 780M scores 12769 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 47% higher than the MX350's 8689. This is the largest performance gap between the two across any shared benchmark.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan, and by how much?

A: The MX350 wins in Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 13077 versus the GTX 780M's 12696. The margin is narrow at 2.9%, but the MX350 takes the win.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU?

A: The GTX 780M's closest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11228, 0.3% slower) and AMD FirePro W4300 (11225, 0.3% slower). The MX350 sits near the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10804, 0.7% slower) and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10761, 1.1% slower), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is 1.5% faster and the AMD Radeon RX 550 is 1.7% faster.

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX features?

A: The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 780M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The MX350 also lists Vulkan 1.4 support compared to the GTX 780M's Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What are the power requirements of each?

A: The GTX 780M has a 122 W TDP and uses an MXM module slot. The MX350 has a 20 W TDP and uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface. Neither requires external power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 780M uses the GK104 chip on TSMC's 28 nm process, built on the Kepler architecture. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The MX350 uses the GP107S chip on Samsung's 14 nm process, built on the Pascal architecture. It contains 3,300 million transistors in a much smaller 132 mm² die, achieving 25.0M transistors per mm². This means the MX350 packs nearly the same transistor count into less than half the silicon area.

The GTX 780M features 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both support portable-device-dependent display outputs, but the GTX 780M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface while the MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4.

The GTX 780M belongs to the GeForce 700M generation, succeeding the GeForce 600M and preceding the GeForce 800M. The MX350 belongs to the GeForce MX (3xx) generation. The GTX 780M was released on 2013-05-10, while the MX350 arrived on 2020-02-09. Both are marked as end-of-life in production status.

The MX350 supports half-precision FP16 compute at 29.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, a feature the GTX 780M does not list. The GTX 780M's FP32 throughput is 2.448 TFLOPS, while the MX350 delivers 1.879 TFLOPS.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ substantially across nearly every specification field. The GTX 780M runs at a base clock of 771 MHz with a boost of 797 MHz, while the MX350 starts at 1354 MHz and boosts to 1468 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the GTX 780M uses 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective, while the MX350 runs at 1752 MHz with 7 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The GTX 780M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, providing only 56.06 GB/s. The GTX 780M's bandwidth advantage is nearly 3x.

Pixel and texture rates follow the compute differences. The GTX 780M achieves 25.50 GPixel/s and 102.0 GTexel/s, while the MX350 manages 23.49 GPixel/s and 46.98 GTexel/s. The GTX 780M more than doubles the MX350 in texture fill rate.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The GTX 780M has a 122 W TDP and comes as an MXM module, while the MX350 has a 20 W TDP and no defined slot width. The GTX 780M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface; the MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. Neither requires external power connectors.

API support differs in DirectX and Vulkan versions. The GTX 780M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows one decisive victory and one narrow defeat for the GTX 780M. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 780M scores 12769 against the MX350's 8689, a 47% advantage. This is the single largest performance gap in the comparison and reflects the GTX 780M's superior compute resources: 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 160 GB/s of bandwidth versus 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 56.06 GB/s.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the MX350 takes the win with 13077 against 12696, a 2.9% margin. This is a much closer result and suggests the MX350's newer architecture and higher clock speeds compensate for its smaller memory bus and lower raw compute specs. The MX350's boost clock of 1468 MHz is nearly double the GTX 780M's 797 MHz, which helps in API-bound workloads.

The overall benchmark average tells a similar story. The GTX 780M averages 11261 across all tests, while the MX350 averages 10883. The GTX 780M's OpenCL score pulls its average up, while the MX350's Vulkan result keeps it competitive. The win count is tied at one apiece.

Looking at nearest rivals, the GTX 780M's average sits within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and AMD FirePro W4300, and 1.6% above the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q. The MX350's average is 0.7% above the AMD Radeon Pro 450 and 1.1% above the NVIDIA Quadro K2200, while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER by 1.5% and the AMD Radeon RX 550 by 1.7%.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 780M wins in OpenCL compute workloads by a massive 47% margin. This makes it the clear choice for GPU-accelerated applications that rely on OpenCL, such as certain rendering tasks, scientific simulations, and video processing pipelines. Its 4 GB memory capacity and 256-bit bus provide ample bandwidth for large datasets, and its 102.0 GTexel/s texture rate handles texture-heavy workloads efficiently. The GTX 780M's 2.448 TFLOPS FP32 throughput also gives it an edge in general-purpose compute.

The MX350 wins in Vulkan performance by 2.9%, which is more relevant for modern gaming and graphics applications that target Vulkan. Its higher clock speeds (1468 MHz boost versus 797 MHz) and newer Pascal architecture contribute to this advantage. The MX350 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, making it better equipped for current software. Its 20 W TDP means it can be deployed in thin, lightweight laptops without demanding cooling solutions, whereas the GTX 780M's 122 W TDP requires a larger chassis and MXM form factor.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth, the GTX 780M is the data-backed choice. For those needing modern API support, lower power consumption, and competitive Vulkan performance, the MX350 wins. The GTX 780M's average benchmark score of 11261 is higher, but the MX350's efficiency and API currency make it the more practical option for contemporary use cases in portable devices.