NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they represent very different design philosophies and eras. The MX350 is a modern, power-sipping Pascal-based chip aimed at thin-and-light laptops, while the GTX 950A is an older, higher-power Maxwell part designed for larger, more performance-oriented notebooks. The benchmark data paints a clear picture of their relative standing, despite the MX350’s architectural advantages.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between these two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisively in favor of the older card. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A scores 10,273 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 scores 8,689 points. This represents a delta of -15.4% for the MX350, meaning the GTX 950A is roughly 15% faster in this compute-oriented test. This is a significant margin that flips the expected narrative based on release dates alone. The GTX 950A, despite being built on an older 28 nm process and having a lower boost clock of 1124 MHz compared to the MX350’s 1468 MHz, still manages to outperform its newer counterpart. The data suggests that raw compute throughput is not solely determined by clock speed or process efficiency; the GTX 950A’s wider 128-bit memory bus and higher memory bandwidth of 32.03 GB/s likely contribute to its OpenCL lead, even though its DDR3 memory is slower in effective speed (2 Gbps) compared to the MX350’s GDDR5 (7 Gbps). The GTX 950A also has more texture mapping units (40 vs. 32), which can help in certain compute workloads that rely on texture fetches. This single result shows that the GTX 950A holds a definitive performance advantage in at least one key metric, making it the winner in the head-to-head comparison with a 1-0 record.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has a higher average benchmark score of 10,883, compared to the GTX 950A’s 10,273. However, this average is calculated from two separate tests for the MX350 (OpenCL and Vulkan), while the GTX 950A only has one OpenCL result. The MX350’s Vulkan score of 13,077 significantly boosts its average, whereas its OpenCL score of 8,689 is actually lower than the GTX 950A’s 10,273.

Q: How does the MX350 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The MX350’s average score of 10,883 places it just 1.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047) and 1.7% behind the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075). It is slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 450 by 0.7% and the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 by 1.1%. This indicates the MX350 sits in a very tight performance cluster, with its closest competitors all within a 2% range.

Q: What is the GTX 950A’s standing relative to its own rivals?

A: The GTX 950A’s average score of 10,273 puts it 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362) and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10,400). It is 2% faster than the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10,070) and 2% slower than the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481). Like the MX350, it is in a competitive mid-range bracket, but its percentile rank of 48 is slightly below the MX350’s 49th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has a higher pixel rate of 23.49 GPixel/s, compared to the GTX 950A’s 17.98 GPixel/s. This is largely due to the MX350’s much higher boost clock (1468 MHz vs. 1124 MHz), as both GPUs have the same number of ROPs (16).

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 950A supports DirectX 12 (11_0). This means the newer MX350 has a slightly more advanced feature level for DirectX 12 applications, though both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A is the more powerful GPU in the one benchmark where they overlap. Its OpenCL score of 10,273 is 15.4% higher than the MX350’s 8,689, making it the clear winner for compute-heavy tasks. However, the MX350 is not without its own merits. Its average benchmark score of 10,883 is higher than the GTX 950A’s 10,273, but this is skewed by a strong Vulkan result. The MX350 also consumes significantly less power (20 W vs. 75 W) and uses a more modern 14 nm process, which suggests better efficiency. For users who prioritize raw compute performance in OpenCL applications, the GTX 950A is the better choice. For those who value a more balanced overall score, including Vulkan performance, and significantly lower power draw, the MX350 has a compelling case. The data does not support a single universal winner; the choice depends on the specific workload.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification. The most striking difference is in process node: the MX350 is built on a 14 nm process from Samsung, while the GTX 950A uses a 28 nm process from TSMC. This directly impacts transistor density, with the MX350 packing 25.0M transistors per mm² versus the GTX 950A’s 12.6M. The MX350 has a smaller die size (132 mm² vs. 148 mm²) but contains far more transistors (3,300 million vs. 1,870 million). Clock speeds also diverge significantly, with the MX350 running at a 1354 MHz base and 1468 MHz boost, while the GTX 950A runs at 993 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Memory configurations are completely different: the MX350 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 950A uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 32.03 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is also higher on the MX350 (1752 MHz / 7 Gbps effective) versus the GTX 950A (1001 MHz / 2 Gbps effective). The shading unit count is identical at 640, but the TMU count differs (32 for MX350, 40 for GTX 950A), while both have 16 ROPs. The MX350 has a much lower TDP of 20 W versus the GTX 950A’s 75 W, and it uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, whereas the GTX 950A uses an MXM-B (3.0) module interface. Finally, the MX350’s pixel rate (23.49 GPixel/s) and texture rate (46.98 GTexel/s) are higher than the GTX 950A’s (17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s), but the FP32 compute is lower on the MX350 (1.879 TFLOPS vs. 1,438.7 GFLOPS).

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is substantial. The MX350 is based on the Pascal architecture using the GP107S chip, while the GTX 950A is based on the older Maxwell architecture using the GM107 chip. This is a generational leap, with Pascal introducing improvements in clock speed efficiency and power management. The MX350’s 14 nm process allows for a much higher transistor density (25.0M / mm²) and a significantly lower TDP (20 W) despite having more transistors. The GTX 950A’s 28 nm process is less efficient, leading to a 75 W TDP. The MX350 also has a higher FP32 throughput at 1.879 TFLOPS versus the GTX 950A’s 1,438.7 GFLOPS, which is surprising given the GTX 950A’s OpenCL win. The MX350 also supports FP16 at 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64), a feature the GTX 950A does not list. DirectX support also differs, with the MX350 offering version 12 (12_1) and the GTX 950A offering 12 (11_0). The MX350’s memory architecture is a key differentiator: it uses GDDR5 on a narrow 64-bit bus, which is fast but limited in capacity for bandwidth, whereas the GTX 950A uses DDR3 on a wider 128-bit bus. This suggests the GTX 950A was designed for a different memory access pattern, prioritizing bus width over speed. The GTX 950A also has a predecessor, the GeForce 800A, indicating its lineage in the 900A series, while the MX350 has no listed predecessor.

Where Each One Wins

The data reveals a clear split in use cases. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A wins in the OpenCL compute benchmark, making it the better choice for tasks that rely heavily on OpenCL acceleration, such as certain video encoding, scientific simulations, or GPU-accelerated rendering that uses this API. Its higher TMU count and wider memory bus likely contribute to this advantage. The MX350, on the other hand, wins in overall average benchmark score, driven by its strong Vulkan score of 13,077. This makes it the better option for Vulkan-based gaming or applications that leverage this modern graphics API. Its higher pixel rate (23.49 GPixel/s) and texture rate (46.98 GTexel/s) also suggest it can handle fill-rate-bound scenarios more effectively, despite its lower raw compute in OpenCL. The MX350’s dramatically lower power draw (20 W) makes it the clear winner for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermal management are critical. The GTX 950A’s 75 W TDP requires a larger cooling solution and more power, limiting it to bulkier chassis. In summary, the GTX 950A is the pick for OpenCL-heavy workloads and raw compute in that specific context, while the MX350 is the pick for Vulkan performance, efficiency, and modern API support.