NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has an average benchmark score of 10883, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK has an average score of 9474. The MX350 sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the TITAN BLACK sits at the 46th percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The GTX TITAN BLACK scores 27218 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the MX350 scores 8689. The TITAN BLACK leads by 68.1 percent in this test, which is the largest margin recorded in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity between the two cards?

A: The MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX TITAN BLACK has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is roughly six times the bandwidth of the MX350.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The MX350 has a TDP of 20 W and requires no power connectors, making it suitable for portable devices. The GTX TITAN BLACK has a TDP of 250 W, requires one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Q: What architectural generations do these GPUs belong to?

A: The MX350 is based on the Pascal architecture with a GP107S chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process by Samsung. The GTX TITAN BLACK is based on the Kepler architecture with a GK110B chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process by TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The GTX TITAN BLACK has 2880 shading units and 240 TMUs, while the MX350 has 640 shading units and 32 TMUs. The TITAN BLACK also has 48 ROPs compared to the MX350’s 16 ROPs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent completely different design philosophies and eras. The MX350 uses the Pascal architecture on a 14 nm process node, manufactured by Samsung, while the GTX TITAN BLACK uses the Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process node, manufactured by TSMC. This process difference is substantial: the MX350 packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.0 million per square millimeter. The GTX TITAN BLACK, by contrast, contains 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, with a transistor density of only 12.6 million per square millimeter. The MX350’s density advantage reflects the newer manufacturing technology.

The GTX TITAN BLACK is built around the GK110B chip, a large server-class design that was adapted for consumer use. Its 2880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs dwarf the MX350’s 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This massive difference in compute resources explains why the TITAN BLACK delivers far higher peak throughput: 5.645 TFLOPS of FP32 versus 1.879 TFLOPS for the MX350. The TITAN BLACK also achieves a pixel rate of 58.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 235.2 GTexel/s, compared to 23.49 GPixel/s and 46.98 GTexel/s for the MX350.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The MX350 uses a 64-bit memory bus with 2 GB GDDR5, while the TITAN BLACK uses a 384-bit bus with 6 GB GDDR5. Memory clocks are nearly identical (1752 MHz for the MX350, 1750 MHz for the TITAN BLACK, both 7 Gbps effective), but the wider bus gives the TITAN BLACK a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s for the MX350. The TITAN BLACK also supports more display outputs, including dual DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the MX350’s outputs are portable device dependent.

API support shows another generational gap. The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The TITAN BLACK supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both lack ray tracing and tensor cores. The MX350 is a low-power mobile solution with a 20 W TDP and no power connectors, while the TITAN BLACK is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 38 mm in width, requiring a 600 W PSU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers two tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The GTX TITAN BLACK wins both, and wins them decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN BLACK scores 27218 against the MX350’s 8689. That is a 68.1 percent lead, the largest margin in any benchmark between these two cards. This result aligns with the raw compute specifications: the TITAN BLACK has 4.5 times the shading units and roughly three times the FP32 throughput. OpenCL workloads that scale with shader count and memory bandwidth will heavily favor the TITAN BLACK.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the TITAN BLACK scores 29561 versus the MX350’s 13077, a 55.8 percent advantage. While the gap narrows compared to OpenCL, the TITAN BLACK still maintains a commanding lead. The MX350’s newer architecture and higher clock speeds (1354 MHz base, 1468 MHz boost versus 889 MHz base, 980 MHz boost) help close the relative gap in Vulkan, but they cannot overcome the TITAN BLACK’s massive resource advantage.

The MX350’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (0.7 percent higher average score), NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (1.1 percent higher), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (1.5 percent lower), and AMD Radeon RX 550 (1.7 percent lower). The TITAN BLACK’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 (0.2 percent higher), AMD Radeon R7 M380 (1.7 percent higher), NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (1.7 percent lower), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (1.8 percent lower). These figures show that the MX350 performs near the level of midrange desktop cards from its era, while the TITAN BLACK performs near the level of midrange cards from a slightly later era, despite its older architecture.

The wins tally is 2 for the TITAN BLACK and 0 for the MX350 in the head-to-head comparison. No benchmark in the database shows the MX350 ahead.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GP107S (MX350) versus GK110B (TITAN BLACK)
• Architecture: Pascal versus Kepler
• Generation: GeForce MX (3xx) versus GeForce 700
• Process node: 14 nm versus 28 nm
• Foundry: Samsung versus TSMC
• Transistors: 3,300 million versus 7,080 million
• Die size: 132 mm² versus 561 mm²
• Transistor density: 25.0M / mm² versus 12.6M / mm²
• Base clock: 1354 MHz versus 889 MHz
• Boost clock: 1468 MHz versus 980 MHz
• Memory size: 2 GB versus 6 GB
• Memory bus width: 64 bit versus 384 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 56.06 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 640 versus 2880
• TMUs: 32 versus 240
• ROPs: 16 versus 48
• Pixel rate: 23.49 GPixel/s versus 58.80 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 46.98 GTexel/s versus 235.2 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1.879 TFLOPS versus 5.645 TFLOPS
• FP16: 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64) versus null (not specified)
• TDP: 20 W versus 250 W
• Slot width: null versus dual-slot
• Power connectors: none versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: null versus 600 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x4 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: portable device dependent versus 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2
• DirectX support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.2.175
• Dimensions: null versus 267 mm length, 111 mm height, 38 mm width
• Release date: 2020-02-09 versus 2014-02-17
• Predecessor: null versus GeForce 600
• Successor: null versus GeForce 900
• Launch MSRP: null versus 999 USD (the TITAN BLACK launched at 999 USD)

Fields that are identical or not applicable include manufacturer (both NVIDIA), memory type (both GDDR5), memory clock (both approximately 1750-1752 MHz, 7 Gbps effective), OpenGL support (both 4.6), production status (both end-of-life), and the absence of RT cores and tensor cores on both.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX TITAN BLACK wins in every recorded compute benchmark. It is the clear choice for any workload that depends on raw shader throughput, memory bandwidth, or fill rates. The 5.645 TFLOPS FP32 performance, combined with 336.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, makes it suitable for demanding GPU compute tasks such as rendering, simulation, or heavy graphics workloads that can use its 2880 shading units. Its 6 GB memory capacity also allows larger datasets to reside in VRAM compared to the MX350’s 2 GB.

The MX350 wins in efficiency and portability. Its 20 W TDP requires no external power connectors, and its bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x4, which suits thin-and-light laptops. The MX350’s higher base and boost clocks (1354 MHz and 1468 MHz versus 889 MHz and 980 MHz) show that it can deliver competitive performance per watt, despite its much smaller resource pool. Its newer architecture also supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), which may provide better feature support in modern applications compared to the TITAN BLACK’s DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

For gaming, the TITAN BLACK’s PassMark results show strengths in older APIs: it scores 133 in DirectX 9, 73 in DirectX 11, 47 in DirectX 10, and 34 in DirectX 12. Its PassMark G3D score is 9184, and its G2D score is 595. The MX350 has no PassMark scores listed in the database, so direct gaming comparisons are limited to the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results, where the TITAN BLACK leads by 68.1 percent and 55.8 percent, respectively.

The MX350’s nearest rival cluster (around 10800-11000 average score) includes cards like the GTX 1650 SUPER and RX 550, indicating that its performance class is that of entry-level discrete GPUs. The TITAN BLACK’s rival cluster (around 9300-9650 average score) includes the GTX 760 and GTX 960M, placing it in a similar overall performance tier despite its much larger silicon. This is notable: the TITAN BLACK’s older Kepler architecture and lower clocks cause it to underperform relative to its massive specs, while the MX350’s newer Pascal architecture and higher clocks allow it to exceed what its modest specs might suggest.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 in every benchmark recorded in the database. The TITAN BLACK wins both head-to-head tests, with leads of 68.1 percent in OpenCL and 55.8 percent in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 9474 is lower than the MX350’s 10883, but that average includes a wide range of tests, many of which favor the MX350’s newer feature set. In the two tests where both cards were measured under identical conditions, the TITAN BLACK wins decisively.

Users who need maximum compute performance, large memory capacity, or high fill rates should choose the GTX TITAN BLACK. It offers 6 GB of VRAM, 2880 shading units, and a 384-bit memory bus, making it the stronger card for heavy workloads. Its 250 W TDP and 600 W PSU requirement are acceptable for desktop users with appropriate power supplies. The launch MSRP of 999 USD reflects its original positioning as a high-end product.

Users who prioritize portability, low power consumption, or modern API support should choose the MX350. Its 20 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and PCIe 3.0 x4 interface make it suitable for laptops and compact devices. Its support for Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1) provides better forward compatibility than the TITAN BLACK’s older API versions. The MX350 also has a higher clock speed, which helps it achieve competitive results in lighter workloads.

The TITAN BLACK is the performance winner; the MX350 is the efficiency and mobility winner. Neither card is currently in production, as both are end-of-life. The choice depends entirely on whether the use case demands raw throughput or portability, and the benchmark data supports the TITAN BLACK for the former and the MX350 for the latter.