AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and AMD Radeon Pro 450 are both end-of-life mobile GPUs that land in the same performance tier, but they achieve their results through very different designs. The data shows a near-perfect split in benchmark wins, with each card taking one of the two shared tests, and their average scores sit within 0.7% of each other. The MX350 edges ahead with an average benchmark score of 10883, while the Radeon Pro 450 trails marginally at 10804. Both cards occupy the 49th percentile among all GPUs, meaning they sit squarely in the middle of the performance pack. For a laptop buyer or a system integrator choosing between these two, the decision comes down to which workload matters more, as the architectural trade-offs are stark.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result in the head-to-head comparison is the GeForce MX350's Vulkan performance. In the geekbench_vulkan test, the NVIDIA card scores 13077 against the Radeon Pro 450's 10518, a commanding 24.3% advantage. This is not a marginal win; it is a substantial gap that will be felt in any Vulkan-based game or compute application. The MX350's Pascal architecture clearly handles the low-level API overhead more efficiently, translating its 640 shading units into a much higher practical throughput in this test.

However, the Radeon Pro 450 strikes back in OpenCL. In the geekbench_opencl test, AMD scores 9002 versus NVIDIA's 8689, a 3.5% lead. While the margin is smaller than NVIDIA's Vulkan victory, it is consistent with the Radeon Pro 450's higher memory bandwidth and wider memory bus. The OpenCL result shows that AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture remains competitive in general-purpose compute workloads, even though it lacks the modern API optimizations that NVIDIA brings to Vulkan.

When looking at the broader rival landscape, both cards sit in a tight cluster. The MX350's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 itself (0.7% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (1.1% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (1.5% behind). The Radeon Pro 450's rivals tell a similar story: the Quadro K2200 is 0.4% ahead, the MX350 is 0.7% ahead, and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S is 1.7% behind. These deltas confirm that neither card has a meaningful overall edge; they are effectively interchangeable in aggregate performance, differing only in where they direct their strength.

The win distribution is exactly even: one win each. This parity is reflected in the average scores, where the MX350's 10883 is only 79 points higher than the Radeon Pro 450's 10804. For context, that difference is smaller than the delta between the MX350 and the GTX 1650 SUPER, which is 1.5%. The conclusion from the raw numbers is that these two GPUs are performance peers, and the choice between them should be driven by the specific API and workload profile of the target applications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has a higher average benchmark score at 10883, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 450's 10804. The difference is only 0.7%, meaning the two are statistically close.

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

A: The MX350 wins decisively in geekbench_vulkan, scoring 13077 against the Radeon Pro 450's 10518. This is a 24.3% advantage for NVIDIA, making it the clear choice for Vulkan-based workloads.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 450 beat the MX350 in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Radeon Pro 450 wins the geekbench_opencl test with a score of 9002, while the MX350 scores 8689. This gives AMD a 3.5% lead in OpenCL compute tasks.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The MX350 uses a 64-bit memory bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon Pro 450 has a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but AMD's wider bus provides significantly more bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The MX350 has a higher transistor density at 25.0M / mm², compared to the Radeon Pro 450's 24.4M / mm². The MX350 packs 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, while AMD fits 3,000 million on a 123 mm² die.

Q: Are the two GPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and the AMD Radeon Pro 450 are in the 49th percentile among all GPUs. This confirms that they are positioned identically in the overall performance hierarchy.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two GPUs is fundamental. The MX350 is built on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, using the GP107S chip fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. The Radeon Pro 450, in contrast, uses AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture with the Baffin chip, also on a 14 nm process but manufactured by GlobalFoundries. Both use the same process node, but the design philosophies diverge sharply from there.

The MX350's die is 132 mm² with 3,300 million transistors, giving it a transistor density of 25.0M / mm². The Radeon Pro 450's die is slightly smaller at 123 mm² but also has fewer transistors at 3,000 million, resulting in a density of 24.4M / mm². These are close figures, but NVIDIA's chip is both larger and denser, suggesting a more complex layout despite the similar node.

The shading unit count is identical at 640 for both cards, but the execution resources differ. The MX350 has 32 texture mapping units (TMUs) and 16 raster operation units (ROPs), while the Radeon Pro 450 has 40 TMUs and 16 ROPs. AMD's extra TMUs should help in texture-heavy scenes, but the MX350 compensates with significantly higher clock speeds. The MX350 runs at a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost of 1468 MHz, while the Radeon Pro 450's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. This clock advantage explains why the MX350 achieves a pixel rate of 23.49 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 46.98 GTexel/s, far exceeding the Radeon Pro 450's 12.80 GPixel/s and 32.00 GTexel/s.

The compute capabilities also differ substantially. The MX350 delivers 1.879 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Radeon Pro 450 delivers 1,024.0 GFLOPS (1.024 TFLOPS), making NVIDIA nearly 84% faster in single-precision floating point. However, the FP16 story is reversed: the Radeon Pro 450 achieves 1,024.0 GFLOPS with a 1:1 FP16:FP32 ratio, while the MX350 manages only 29.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio. This makes the AMD card far superior for workloads that leverage FP16, provided the software supports it.

The API support also differs. The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon Pro 450 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The newer API versions on the NVIDIA card explain its Vulkan benchmark dominance, as the architecture is better suited to the modern low-level interface.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on several specification fields. The MX350 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface, while the Radeon Pro 450 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, giving AMD double the bus bandwidth for data transfers. The MX350 is a 20 W part with no power connectors, while the Radeon Pro 450 is a 35 W part that uses an MXM module form factor. The Radeon Pro 450's higher power draw is consistent with its wider memory bus and higher TMU count.

The memory clocks differ notably. The MX350's memory runs at 1752 MHz with 7 Gbps effective speed, while the Radeon Pro 450's memory runs at 1270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective. However, the AMD card's 128-bit bus provides 81.28 GB/s of bandwidth, far exceeding the MX350's 56.06 GB/s from its 64-bit bus. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the bandwidth advantage belongs entirely to AMD.

The release dates are separated by over three years. The Radeon Pro 450 launched on 2016-10-29, while the MX350 launched on 2020-02-09. This makes the AMD part a much older design, though both are now end-of-life. The MX350's generation is listed as "GeForce MX (3xx)" and the Radeon Pro 450's as "Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series)" — the latter indicating its primary target was Apple's Mac lineup.

The display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for both, meaning neither has fixed output options. The MX350 has no slot width listed, while the Radeon Pro 450 specifies an MXM Module. The MX350 has no power connector listed, while the Radeon Pro 450's power connector field is null, but its 35 W TDP suggests it draws power through the MXM slot.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is the clear winner for Vulkan-based gaming and modern API workloads. Its 24.3% lead in geekbench_vulkan is the single largest performance gap between the two cards, and it directly translates to better frame rates in Vulkan titles. The MX350 also has higher pixel and texture rates (23.49 GPixel/s vs. 12.80 GPixel/s, and 46.98 GTexel/s vs. 32.00 GTexel/s), which should benefit fill-rate-bound scenarios. Its lower 20 W TDP makes it a better fit for thin-and-light laptops where power consumption is a constraint.

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 wins in OpenCL compute tasks, as shown by its 3.5% lead in geekbench_opencl. Its 81.28 GB/s memory bandwidth is 45% higher than the MX350's 56.06 GB/s, which is a significant advantage for memory-heavy workloads. The Radeon Pro 450 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (1,024.0 GFLOPS), whereas the MX350's FP16 is crippled at 29.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio. For any application that uses FP16, such as certain AI inference or image processing tasks, the AMD card is vastly superior. The wider PCIe 3.0 x8 interface also helps with data-intensive workloads.

For texture-heavy rendering, the Radeon Pro 450's 40 TMUs outperform the MX350's 32 TMUs, although the NVIDIA card's higher clock speeds partially offset this. The MX350's faster boost clock of 1468 MHz gives it a raw execution speed advantage that shows up in its higher TFLOPS rating. The choice between these two ultimately comes down to whether the workload favors NVIDIA's faster clocked, newer architecture or AMD's wider memory bus and superior FP16 support.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear use-case split. For gamers or users running Vulkan-native applications, the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is the superior choice. Its 24.3% Vulkan advantage is decisive, and its higher pixel and texture rates make it better suited for real-time graphics. The MX350 also consumes less power at 20 W versus 35 W, which is a meaningful consideration for laptop battery life and thermals.

For compute-focused users, particularly those working with OpenCL or FP16 workloads, the AMD Radeon Pro 450 is the better pick. Its OpenCL lead, while modest at 3.5%, is backed by a 45% memory bandwidth advantage and a fully functional FP16 path. The wider memory bus and PCIe x8 interface also make it more capable in bandwidth-bound scenarios.

In aggregate, the two GPUs are effectively tied. The MX350's average score of 10883 is only 0.7% higher than the Radeon Pro 450's 10804, and both sit at the 49th percentile. The MX350 is the newer part with better Vulkan support and higher raw throughput, while the Radeon Pro 450 offers better compute flexibility and memory bandwidth. A builder choosing between them should let the target application dictate the decision: Vulkan gaming points to NVIDIA, OpenCL and FP16 compute points to AMD. Neither card dominates the other, and the benchmark data confirms they are peers in the midrange mobile GPU landscape.