AMD Radeon RX 6500M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6500M decisively outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 in every benchmark recorded, making it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads and modern gaming. The GeForce MX350, while significantly less powerful, maintains a slight edge in its average benchmark percentile ranking relative to all GPUs, but this does not translate into any practical performance advantage over its rival. The data shows a generational and architectural gap that the MX350 cannot overcome, with the RX 6500M delivering roughly four times the performance in both OpenCL and Vulkan tests.

Where Each One Wins

The performance split between these two mobile GPUs is heavily one-sided, with the AMD Radeon RX 6500M winning both head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 records zero benchmark wins against its rival, while the RX 6500M claims two. This indicates that the RX 6500M is the superior option for any task that leverages general-purpose GPU compute, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or any application using OpenCL or Vulkan APIs. Its substantial lead in raw compute throughput makes it suitable for more demanding creative and productivity workloads.

In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 does not win any specific use-case category based on the benchmark data. However, its lower thermal design power of 20 W, compared to the RX 6500M's 50 W, suggests it is better suited for ultra-thin and light laptops where battery life and heat dissipation are prioritized over raw performance. The MX350's position in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, versus the RX 6500M's 48th percentile, is a nominal statistical advantage but is practically meaningless given the massive performance deficit in actual tests. The MX350 is a legacy entry-level part, while the RX 6500M, despite its own end-of-life status, offers a far more capable modern feature set.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M is significantly faster, scoring 38,586 compared to the NVIDIA GeForce MX350's 8,689. This represents a 77.5% higher score for the AMD part.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M has a substantially higher memory bandwidth of 144.0 GB/s using 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 offers 56.06 GB/s with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 64-bit bus width.

Q: Do these GPUs support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon RX 6500M includes 16 ray accelerators as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350, based on the older Pascal architecture, has no ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the DirectX feature level differences?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (feature level 12_2), while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is limited to DirectX 12 (feature level 12_1). This gives the AMD part access to newer rendering features.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M has a much higher boost clock of 2400 MHz, with a game clock of 2191 MHz. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350's boost clock is only 1468 MHz.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M delivers 4.915 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 provides 1.879 TFLOPS. The AMD GPU is therefore roughly 2.6 times more powerful in this metric.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unequivocal. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 38,586, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 scores just 8,689. The delta percentage of -77.5% for the MX350 indicates that its score is 77.5% lower than the RX 6500M's. This is a massive gap that highlights the fundamental differences in compute capability between the two architectures.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story. The RX 6500M achieves a score of 43,837, dwarfing the MX350's 13,077. The delta percentage here is -70.2% for the MX350. While the MX350's Vulkan score is higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting some relative efficiency in that API, it still trails the AMD part by a wide margin. These results show that in any modern graphics or compute workload, the RX 6500M is in a completely different performance class.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the MX350's average benchmark score is 10,883, while the RX 6500M's is 10,362. This is an unusual inversion, where the slower GPU has a higher average score. This discrepancy is likely due to the different sets of benchmarks included in each GPU's average, as the RX 6500M has a much wider range of tests, including older DirectX 9, 10, and 11 tests where it may not scale as well. Despite this statistical quirk, the direct head-to-head comparisons are the most reliable indicator, and they clearly favor the AMD GPU.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal stark contrasts in nearly every category. The process node differs significantly: the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is built on a 14 nm process at Samsung, while the AMD Radeon RX 6500M uses a more advanced 6 nm process at TSMC. This leads to a major difference in transistor density, with the RX 6500M packing 50.5 million transistors per mm² versus the MX350's 25.0 million per mm². The RX 6500M also has more total transistors (5,400 million) on a smaller die (107 mm²) compared to the MX350's 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die.

The memory configurations are entirely different generations. The MX350 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory at 7 Gbps effective, providing 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory at 18 Gbps effective, yielding 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Both use a 64-bit memory bus, but the newer memory technology in the AMD part gives it a clear advantage in data throughput.

The compute unit counts are also vastly different. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The RX 6500M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This translates to significantly higher pixel and texture rates for the AMD GPU: 76.80 GPixel/s and 153.6 GTexel/s, respectively, versus 23.49 GPixel/s and 46.98 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part. The power envelopes also differ, with the MX350 rated at 20 W and the RX 6500M at 50 W. Finally, the bus interface is different: PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX350 and PCIe 4.0 x4 for the RX 6500M.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these GPUs is generational. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is based on the Pascal architecture, which debuted in 2016. It is a legacy design that lacks dedicated hardware for ray tracing or tensor operations. Its FP16 performance is a minuscule 29.36 GFLOPS, indicating a 1:64 ratio with FP32, meaning it is not optimized for half-precision compute. The chip is designated GP107S.

The AMD Radeon RX 6500M is built on the modern RDNA 2.0 architecture, which brings significant improvements in performance per watt and feature set. It includes 16 dedicated ray accelerators, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature entirely absent from the MX350. Its FP16 performance is 9.830 TFLOPS, delivered at a 2:1 ratio with FP32, making it far more capable at half-precision workloads. The chip is named Navi 24.

The release timeline further illustrates the gap: the MX350 was released in February 2020, while the RX 6500M arrived in January 2022. The RX 6500M is part of the Radeon RX 6000 series, with a predecessor listed as Polaris Mobile. The MX350 belongs to the GeForce MX 3xx generation with no listed predecessor or successor. The AMD part also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is a more advanced API feature set compared to the DirectX 12_1 support of the NVIDIA part. Both GPUs support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the underlying architectural capabilities are vastly different.

The Verdict

The data leads to an unambiguous conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6500M is the far superior GPU. For any user prioritizing performance in gaming, content creation, or general compute tasks, the RX 6500M is the only rational choice. Its benchmark scores are 70-77% higher than the MX350, and it offers double the memory, nearly triple the FP32 compute power, and modern features like hardware ray tracing. The RX 6500M's higher power consumption of 50 W is a trade-off, but it is a necessary one for the performance on offer.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350, on the other hand, should only be considered for specific, low-power scenarios. Its 20 W TDP makes it suitable for passively cooled or ultra-portable devices where battery life is paramount and gaming is not a primary function. It is an end-of-life product from the Pascal era, and its performance is firmly in the entry-level category. A user who needs a GPU for basic display output, light video playback, and occasional casual gaming might find it adequate, but it offers no future-proofing and struggles with any demanding workload.

The verdict is clear: for the vast majority of users, the AMD Radeon RX 6500M is the definitive winner. Its performance leads are so large that they outweigh any other considerations. The MX350's only advantage is its lower power draw, which is a niche benefit that does not compensate for its massive performance deficit. If performance matters at all, the RX 6500M is the GPU to pick.