Radeon R7 350 vs GeForce GTX 570
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 570 and Radeon R7 350, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 570 outperforms R7 350 by an impressive 82% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 446 | 610 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.07 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.21 | 7.01 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 December 2010 (14 years ago) | 6 July 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $349 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 cores | 480 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 732 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 43.92 | 25.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.405 TFLOPS | 0.8192 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 16 |
| TMUs | 60 | 32 |
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 support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 168 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1900 MHz (3800 data rate) | 1125 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 152.0 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
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 Connectors | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 HD | 80
+100%
| 40−45
−100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.36 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+106%
|
18−20
−106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+96.7%
|
30−33
−96.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+106%
|
18−20
−106%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+97.5%
|
40−45
−97.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
| World of Tanks | 140−150
+82.5%
|
80−85
−82.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+106%
|
18−20
−106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+97.5%
|
40−45
−97.5%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+91.4%
|
35−40
−91.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| World of Tanks | 70−75
+82.5%
|
40−45
−82.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
This is how GTX 570 and R7 350 compete in popular games:
- GTX 570 is 100% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.75 | 5.35 |
| Recency | 7 December 2010 | 6 July 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 55 Watt |
GTX 570 has a 82.2% higher aggregate performance score.
R7 350, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 60% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 298.2% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 570 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
