AMD Radeon R7 350

The AMD Radeon R7 350 occupies a specific niche in the performance hierarchy, built on the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Cape Verde chip. This end-of-life product, released in July 2016, still appears in benchmark databases with an average score of 7425, placing it in the 39th percentile of all GPUs. The data presents a card that sits near a cluster of similarly-performing rivals, making its relative position more about specific workloads than outright dominance.

Benchmark Performance

The average benchmark score of 7425 positions the R7 350 in a tightly contested band. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, scores 7447, meaning the R7 350 trails by a negligible -0.3%. This effectively places the two cards at performance parity; in real-world terms, the difference is within measurement noise. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000, however, scores 7315, which puts the R7 350 ahead by 1.5%. While this is a modest margin, it indicates the R7 350 holds a slight edge over that workstation-class card in the aggregate benchmark.

Looking upward, the Intel Arc A310 and AMD Radeon R7 250 both score 7550 and 7557 respectively, with the R7 350 trailing each by -1.7%. This consistent delta suggests the R7 350 sits at the lower edge of this performance cluster. The data implies that the card is not a outlier in either direction; it is firmly within a 2% band of performance spread across four different products. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R7 350 achieves 7792 points, while its Vulkan score is 7057. The OpenCL result is notably higher than the Vulkan score, a gap of roughly 10%, which may reflect driver maturity or architectural strengths in compute workloads rather than graphics-centric tasks.

The percentile ranking of 39% versus all GPUs is a sobering metric. It indicates that the majority of graphics cards in the database outperform this model. The benchmark results do not suggest a high-performance part; rather, they paint a picture of a low-end solution that trades blows with older mobile and entry-level desktop parts. For the R7 350, the aggregate score of 7425 is the reference point, and its position relative to the 7447 of the HD 8850M and the 7557 of the R7 250 shows that generation-to-generation gains were minimal in this segment.

Memory Subsystem

The R7 350 is equipped with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, connected via a 128-bit bus. This configuration yields a memory bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s, a figure derived from the memory clock of 1125 MHz, which translates to 4.5 Gbps effective. The bandwidth is a critical constraint for this card. At 1080p, the 2 GB capacity can hold most textures for titles from its era, but the 72.00 GB/s throughput may become a limiting factor in scenes with heavy texture streaming or high-resolution assets.

The 128-bit bus width is narrow by modern standards, and the resulting bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s is modest. For high-resolution gaming, such as 1440p or above, the data suggests this card would struggle. The combination of 2 GB VRAM and 72.00 GB/s bandwidth means that higher resolutions would likely exceed the memory capacity or saturate the bus, leading to stuttering or reduced texture quality. The pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 25.60 GTexel/s further reinforce that this is not a card designed for high-resolution rendering; these figures indicate a fillrate ceiling that limits performance as resolution scales.

Benchmark scores do not isolate memory-bound scenarios, but the subsystem specifications imply that the R7 350 is best suited for 1080p or lower. The 4.5 Gbps effective memory speed is a standard GDDR5 implementation, and the 72.00 GB/s bandwidth aligns with the card’s low-end positioning. The data does not include any overclocking headroom or alternative memory configurations, so the 2 GB is the only capacity available in this analysis.

Who Should Consider It

Given the average score of 7425 and the 39th percentile ranking, the R7 350 is suitable for users targeting 1080p gaming at low to medium settings in older or less demanding titles. The performance delta of -1.7% against the R7 250 and -0.3% against the HD 8850M indicates that users upgrading from those cards would see minimal benefit. However, the 1.5% lead over the Quadro 5000 suggests a slight edge in compute-oriented tasks, which could matter for light productivity workloads.

For esports titles or games from the early 2010s, the R7 350’s 512 shading units and 16 ROPs can deliver playable frame rates at 1080p with reduced graphical presets. The 2 GB VRAM is sufficient for such scenarios, as long as texture quality is kept moderate. Users with a 250 W power supply, as suggested, and a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot can integrate this card without additional power connectors, simplifying installation in pre-built systems.

The data does not support recommendations for 1440p or 4K gaming. The memory bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s and the fillrate figures would likely produce sub-30 FPS performance in most modern titles at those resolutions. The card also is not a candidate for high-refresh-rate gaming, as the 819.2 GFLOPS FP32 compute capability is limited. This is a card for basic gaming, media playback, or as a display output solution for systems with integrated graphics, but benchmark results indicate it is not a viable option for demanding workloads.

FAQ

Q: How does the R7 350 compare to the AMD Radeon HD 8850M?

A: The R7 350 scores 7425 on average, while the HD 8850M scores 7447, resulting in a delta of -0.3%. This places the two cards at near-identical performance levels.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the R7 350?

A: The card features a 128-bit bus with GDDR5 memory, providing a bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s, based on a 1125 MHz memory clock.

Q: Does the R7 350 support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, the card supports DirectX 12 (11_1), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the power consumption and PSU requirement?

A: The TDP is 55 W, and the suggested power supply is 250 W. The card requires no power connectors and is a single-slot design.

Q: How much VRAM does the R7 350 have?

A: It has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is suitable for 1080p gaming with moderate settings but may limit higher resolutions.

Q: What is the pixel rate of the R7 350?

A: The pixel rate is 12.80 GPixel/s, with a texture rate of 25.60 GTexel/s, indicating limited fillrate for high-resolution rendering.

Ray Tracing and Feature Set

The R7 350 does not include dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as these are absent from the FACT PACK. The architecture, GCN 1.0, predates hardware-accelerated ray tracing in consumer GPUs. The card’s feature set relies on traditional rasterization, with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs providing the foundational compute capabilities. The FP32 performance is 819.2 GFLOPS, which is the peak single-precision throughput, but no FP16 data is listed.

API support includes DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Vulkan score of 7057 in Geekbench suggests functional support for modern APIs, but the absence of RT cores means any ray tracing effects would be software-based, likely resulting in poor performance. The display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, which limits connectivity to older display standards; HDMI 1.4a does not support high refresh rates at 4K, for instance. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16, which is compatible with most motherboards from the last decade.

The lack of tensor cores also means no dedicated AI acceleration, and the feature set is firmly rooted in the GCN generation. The data does not provide any details on ray tracing performance, as the card predates that technology. Users seeking ray tracing capabilities would need a different product, as the R7 350 is not equipped for such workloads.

Power and Cooling

The thermal design power (TDP) is 55 W, which is low and allows for a single-slot cooler. The card length is 168 mm (6.6 inches), fitting into most compact cases. The power connectors are listed as "None," meaning the card draws all power from the PCIe slot, which simplifies installation. The suggested power supply is 250 W, which is a modest requirement, making the R7 350 compatible with older or low-wattage systems.

The cooling solution is not specified in detail, but the single-slot form factor and 55 W TDP suggest a passive or low-profile fan design. The card’s dimensions indicate it will not obstruct adjacent slots in most motherboards. The power draw of 55 W is low enough that additional cooling is unlikely to be a concern in well-ventilated cases. The absence of power connectors reinforces the card’s position as an entry-level part that does not require a high-end PSU. The PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is backward compatible with PCIe 2.0 slots, though performance may be slightly limited in older systems, though the data does not quantify this. Overall, the power and cooling requirements are minimal, aligning with the card’s low performance tier.

How It Compares

AMD Radeon HD 8850M: The R7 350 scores 7425, while the HD 8850M scores 7447, a delta of -0.3%. This is essentially a tie, meaning users upgrading from the mobile HD 8850M to the desktop R7 350 would see no meaningful performance change. The data suggests both cards are equally matched in aggregate benchmarks.

NVIDIA Quadro 5000: The R7 350 leads the Quadro 5000 by 1.5%, with scores of 7425 versus 7315. This is a slim margin, but it indicates the R7 350 holds a slight advantage over this older professional card. The Quadro 5000’s lower score may reflect its workstation-oriented drivers or older architecture, but the R7 350 comes out ahead in this comparison.

Intel Arc A310: The Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1.7% higher than the R7 350’s 7425. This puts the Intel card ahead, though the difference is small. The Arc A310 is a newer product, but the benchmark data shows it only marginally outperforms the aging R7 350, suggesting the R7 350 remains competitive in this narrow band.

AMD Radeon R7 250: The R7 250 scores 7557, again 1.7% higher than the R7 350. The delta is identical to the Arc A310 comparison, indicating that the R7 350 is slightly slower than its predecessor in the R7 200 series. This is a curious result, as the R7 350 is a later release, but the benchmark data shows the R7 250 holds a minor edge.