ATI Radeon HD 4350 vs GeForce 920M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 920M with Radeon HD 4350, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 920M
2015
4 GB DDR3, 33 Watt
1.87
+405%

920M outperforms ATI HD 4350 by a whopping 405% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking9171273
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.901.27
ArchitectureKepler 2.0 (2013−2015)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameGK208BRV710
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date13 March 2015 (9 years ago)30 September 2008 (16 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores38480
Core clock speed954 MHz600 MHz
Number of transistors915 million242 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate30.534.800
Floating-point processing power0.7327 TFLOPS0.096 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs328

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz400 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s6.4 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs2x DisplayPort

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GPU Boost2.0no data
Optimus+-
GameWorks+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)10.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 920M 1.87
+405%
ATI HD 4350 0.37

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce 920M 717
+398%
ATI HD 4350 144

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GeForce 920M 5587
+712%
ATI HD 4350 688

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD15
+150%
6
−150%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Elden Ring 2−3 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Dota 2 13
+550%
2−3
−550%
Elden Ring 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 23
+229%
7−8
−229%
Fortnite 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 6
+500%
1−2
−500%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 26
+271%
7−8
−271%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+120%
5−6
−120%
World of Tanks 35−40
+157%
14−16
−157%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Dota 2 25
+525%
4−5
−525%
Far Cry 5 9
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
World of Tanks 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Valorant 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Valorant 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

This is how GeForce 920M and ATI HD 4350 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce 920M is 150% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce 920M is 500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce 920M is ahead in 27 tests (84%)
  • there's a draw in 5 tests (16%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.87 0.37
Recency 13 March 2015 30 September 2008
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 33 Watt 20 Watt

GeForce 920M has a 405.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

ATI HD 4350, on the other hand, has 65% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 920M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4350 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 920M is a notebook card while Radeon HD 4350 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 920M
GeForce 920M
ATI Radeon HD 4350
Radeon HD 4350

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 1343 votes

Rate GeForce 920M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 220 votes

Rate Radeon HD 4350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.