GeForce MX350 vs GTX 880M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 880M and GeForce MX350, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 880M
2014
8 GB GDDR5, 122 Watt
9.89
+36%

GTX 880M outperforms MX350 by a substantial 36% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking451534
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.6025.13
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGK104GP107
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date12 March 2014 (10 years ago)10 February 2020 (4 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 cores1536640
Core clock speed954 MHz747 MHz
Boost clock speed993 MHz937 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)122 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate127.129.98
Floating-point processing power3.05 TFLOPS1.199 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs12832

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).

Laptop sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB2 GB
Standard memory configurationGDDR5no data
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 2500 MHz1752 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/s56.06 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 outputsNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportUp to 3840x2160no data
LVDS signal supportUp to 1920x1200no data
VGA аnalog display supportUp to 2048x1536no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportUp to 3840x2160no data
HDMI+-
HDCP content protection+-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI+-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming+-

Supported technologies

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

H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus++

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.11.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA+6.1

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.

GTX 880M 9.89
+36%
GeForce MX350 7.27

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.

GTX 880M 3817
+36.2%
GeForce MX350 2803

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 880M 8578
+39.1%
GeForce MX350 6166

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GTX 880M 6101
+39.6%
GeForce MX350 4371

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 880M 39891
+61.2%
GeForce MX350 24744

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 880M 14865
+10.5%
GeForce MX350 13447

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 880M 268706
GeForce MX350 285166
+6.1%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

GTX 880M 13675
GeForce MX350 13921
+1.8%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

GTX 880M 10249
GeForce MX350 12572
+22.7%

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:

900p135
+42.1%
95−100
−42.1%
Full HD55
+104%
27
−104%
1440p35−40
+29.6%
27
−29.6%
4K24
−8.3%
26
+8.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+9.1%
22
−9.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+15.4%
13
−15.4%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+5.3%
19
−5.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−13%
26
+13%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
−29.6%
35
+29.6%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+37.5%
45−50
−37.5%
Hitman 3 18−20
−5.3%
20
+5.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−139%
129
+139%
Metro Exodus 30−35
−19.4%
37
+19.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
−18.5%
32
+18.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+33.3%
24−27
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−50.8%
95
+50.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
−8.3%
26
+8.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+150%
6
−150%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+17.6%
17
−17.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
23
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+8%
25
−8%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+37.5%
45−50
−37.5%
Hitman 3 18−20
−5.3%
20
+5.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−115%
116
+115%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+10.7%
28
−10.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+12.5%
24
−12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+28%
25
−28%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 102
+364%
21−24
−364%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−39.7%
88
+39.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+200%
8
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+233%
6
−233%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+53.3%
15
−53.3%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+247%
19
−247%
Hitman 3 18−20
+11.8%
17
−11.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+170%
20
−170%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+68.4%
19
−68.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+18.8%
16
−18.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+950%
6
−950%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+35%
20
−35%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+69.2%
24−27
−69.2%
Hitman 3 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+33.3%
14−16
−33.3%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+34.8%
45−50
−34.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+33.3%
12−14
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Hitman 3 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+75%
24−27
−75%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%

This is how GTX 880M and GeForce MX350 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 880M is 42% faster in 900p
  • GTX 880M is 104% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 880M is 30% faster in 1440p
  • GeForce MX350 is 8% faster in 4K

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 880M is 950% faster.
  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX350 is 139% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 880M is ahead in 59 tests (82%)
  • GeForce MX350 is ahead in 11 tests (15%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.89 7.27
Recency 12 March 2014 10 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 122 Watt 20 Watt

GTX 880M has a 36% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX350, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 510% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 880M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX350 in performance tests.


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 GTX 880M
GeForce GTX 880M
NVIDIA GeForce MX350
GeForce MX350

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.8 107 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 880M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1609 votes

Rate GeForce MX350 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.