NVIDIA GeForce MX350 vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 represent two opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, and the benchmark data confirms a chasm in performance that is far wider than their percentile rankings suggest. The RTX PRO 6000D scores 11088 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, while the MX350’s average benchmark score across Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests is 10883. Despite a negligible 1.9% difference in their aggregate scores, the context of these numbers is entirely different, as the MX350’s results come from API-specific tests rather than the 3DMark workload. The data shows that the RTX PRO 6000D is a 300 W professional workstation behemoth, while the MX350 is a 20 W end-of-life mobile chip, and their architectural and memory differences dictate entirely separate use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these two cards are not available in the data, so the analysis must rely on their individual benchmark scores and nearestRivals data. The RTX PRO 6000D’s sole benchmark result is 11088 in 3dmark_3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12, a demanding DirectX 12 test. This score places it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 550, which scores 11075, a delta of 0.1%. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER trails at 11047, a 0.4% deficit, while the AMD FirePro W4300 is 1.2% ahead at 11225. This clustering indicates that, in this specific workload, the RTX PRO 6000D performs at a level comparable to entry-level gaming and older professional cards, which is a surprising result for a flagship workstation part, but it is the only direct 3D benchmark data available.

The MX350’s benchmark profile is different, with two Geekbench results. It scores 8689 in Geekbench OpenCL and 13077 in Geekbench Vulkan, yielding an average score of 10883. This average places it at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, just one percentile point below the RTX PRO 6000D. However, the MX350’s nearestRivals tell a different story: the AMD Radeon Pro 450 is 0.7% ahead at 10804, the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is 1.1% ahead at 10761, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is 1.5% behind at 11047. The RTX PRO 6000D’s rival list includes the GTX 1650 SUPER at 0.4% behind, while the MX350 sees the same card as 1.5% ahead. This inversion shows that the MX350 is competitive in its own benchmark suite, but the RTX PRO 6000D’s 3DMark score is constrained by a test that does not showcase its strengths.

The biggest win for the RTX PRO 6000D is its FP32 compute throughput of 110.1 TFLOPS, a figure that is 58.6 times higher than the MX350’s 1.879 TFLOPS. Similarly, the RTX PRO 6000D’s texture rate of 1,720.6 GTexel/s dwarfs the MX350’s 46.98 GTexel/s, a 36.6-fold advantage. In pixel throughput, the RTX PRO 6000D achieves 439.3 GPixel/s versus 23.49 GPixel/s for the MX350, an 18.7-fold lead. These figures are not from a head-to-head test but represent the raw capability difference that the benchmark scores fail to capture.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is stark. The RTX PRO 6000D is built on the GB202 chip using the Blackwell 2.0 architecture and a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the MX350 uses the GP107S chip on the Pascal architecture and a 14 nm process at Samsung. The RTX PRO 6000D packs 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 122.9M per mm². The MX350 has just 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, with a density of 25.0M per mm². This represents a 27.9-fold difference in transistor count and a 5.7-fold difference in die size.

Memory configuration is equally divergent. The RTX PRO 6000D features 96 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, delivering 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. The MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 56.06 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a 48-fold difference in capacity and a 31.9-fold difference in bandwidth. The RTX PRO 6000D’s memory clock is 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective), while the MX350 runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Core counts are also vastly different: the RTX PRO 6000D has 24,064 shading units, 752 TMUs, 192 ROPs, 188 RT cores, and 752 tensor cores. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no RT cores or tensor cores at all.

Feature support also separates the two. The RTX PRO 6000D supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX PRO 6000D has a base clock of 1590 MHz and a boost clock of 2288 MHz, while the MX350 runs at 1354 MHz base and 1468 MHz boost. The RTX PRO 6000D’s FP16 performance is 110.1 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the MX350’s FP16 is 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), indicating the RTX PRO 6000D has much stronger mixed-precision compute. The MX350 uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the RTX PRO 6000D uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX PRO 6000D wins decisively in raw compute and memory capacity. Its 110.1 TFLOPS FP32 performance is essential for professional workloads like large-scale rendering, scientific simulation, and AI training, where the MX350’s 1.879 TFLOPS would be a bottleneck. The 96 GB of GDDR7 memory with 1.79 TB/s bandwidth allows the RTX PRO 6000D to handle datasets that are entirely impossible for the MX350’s 2 GB GDDR5 frame buffer. The presence of 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores means the RTX PRO 6000D supports hardware-accelerated ray tracing and tensor operations, which the MX350 lacks entirely. The RTX PRO 6000D also has four DisplayPort 2.1b outputs, while the MX350 relies on portable device-dependent outputs.

The MX350 wins in power efficiency and portability. Its 20 W TDP is a fraction of the RTX PRO 6000D’s 300 W TDP, and it requires no power connectors, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops. The MX350’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 13077 is notably higher than its OpenCL score of 8689, suggesting it can handle lightweight graphics and compute tasks in a mobile environment. The MX350 is also end-of-life, while the RTX PRO 6000D is active in production, but the MX350’s lower power draw means it can operate in devices where the RTX PRO 6000D’s dual-slot width and 700 W suggested PSU are non-starters. The MX350’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 450, is only 0.7% ahead, indicating it holds its own in its niche.

The RTX PRO 6000D’s 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 11088, while modest, still places it above the GTX 1650 SUPER by 0.4%, showing it can outperform some discrete desktop GPUs in specific tests. The MX350’s average score of 10883 is 1.9% lower, and its best single result (Vulkan 13077) suggests it excels in API-specific workloads that favor its architecture. The RTX PRO 6000D has a 50th percentile rank versus the MX350’s 49th, a marginal difference that belies the massive hardware disparity.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q is for professionals who need maximum compute, memory, and bandwidth. Its 96 GB memory, 110.1 TFLOPS FP32, and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth make it suitable for tasks that the MX350 cannot even attempt. The MX350 is for users who need a low-power, end-of-life mobile GPU for basic graphics acceleration and light compute, with its 20 W TDP and no power connectors enabling deployment in portable devices. The RTX PRO 6000D’s launch MSRP is 8,565 USD, and its active production status means it is a current product.

Choose the RTX PRO 6000D if your workload demands massive memory capacity, ray tracing, tensor cores, or high-throughput compute. The MX350 is appropriate for legacy systems or ultra-portable laptops where battery life and thermal constraints are paramount, and where the workload is limited to basic 2D or light 3D tasks. The RTX PRO 6000D’s 300 W TDP and dual-slot design require a desktop workstation with a 700 W PSU, while the MX350 fits into devices with no additional power connections. The MX350’s 2 GB memory is a hard limit for modern applications, whereas the RTX PRO 6000D’s 512-bit bus and GDDR7 memory provide future-proofing. The verdict is simple: the RTX PRO 6000D is a workstation-class compute engine, and the MX350 is an entry-level mobile chip with a niche role.

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw FP32 performance?

A: The RTX PRO 6000D delivers 110.1 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the MX350 provides 1.879 TFLOPS, making the RTX PRO 6000D 58.6 times faster.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX PRO 6000D has 96 GB of GDDR7 memory, whereas the MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, a 48-fold difference in capacity.

Q: Do both GPUs support hardware ray tracing?

A: No. The RTX PRO 6000D has 188 RT cores, while the MX350 has no RT cores listed in its specifications.

Q: What is the power consumption of each card?

A: The RTX PRO 6000D has a TDP of 300 W and requires a 700 W suggested PSU, while the MX350 has a TDP of 20 W and requires no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX PRO 6000D has an average benchmark score of 11088, while the MX350 has an average score of 10883, a difference of 1.9% in favor of the RTX PRO 6000D.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The RTX PRO 6000D is listed as active in production, while the MX350 is end-of-life.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q | NVIDIA GeForce MX350 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Chip | GB202 | GP107S |

| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 92,200 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 750 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 122.9M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1590 MHz | 1354 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2288 MHz | 1468 MHz |

| Memory Size | 96 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR7 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 512 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 1.79 TB/s | 56.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 24064 | 640 |

| TMUs | 752 | 32 |

| ROPs | 192 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 188 | null |

| Tensor Cores | 752 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 439.3 GPixel/s | 23.49 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,720.6 GTexel/s | 46.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 110.1 TFLOPS | 1.879 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 110.1 TFLOPS (1:1) | 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 300 W | 20 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1b | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2025-03-17 | 2020-02-09 |