GeForce 8800 GT vs MX350

Place in the ranking	538	1049
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.03
Power efficiency	24.98	0.67
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GP107	G92
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	10 February 2020 (4 years ago)	29 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$349

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	640	112
Core clock speed	747 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	937 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,300 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	105 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	29.98	33.60
Floating-point processing power	1.199 TFLOPS	0.336 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	32	56

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	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Height	no data	Single Slot
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin
SLI options	-	2-way

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1752 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	56.06 GB/s	57.6 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 Connectors	No outputs	Dual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)	no data	128bit
Optimus	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
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.

GeForce MX350 7.29
+498%

8800 GT 1.22

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 MX350 2808
+496%

8800 GT 471

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	26 +550%	4−5 −550%
1440p	31 +520%	5−6 −520%
4K	25 +525%	4−5 −525%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	87.25
1440p	no data	69.80
4K	no data	87.25

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14

+500%

2−3
−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	22 +633%	3−4 −633%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +550%	2−3 −550%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +600%	3−4 −600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	19 +533%	3−4 −533%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Far Cry 5	26 +550%	4−5 −550%
Far Cry New Dawn	35 +600%	5−6 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +500%	8−9 −500%
Hitman 3	20 +567%	3−4 −567%
Horizon Zero Dawn	129 +514%	21−24 −514%
Metro Exodus	37 +517%	6−7 −517%
Red Dead Redemption 2	32 +540%	5−6 −540%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95 +579%	14−16 −579%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	26 +550%	4−5 −550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6 +500%	1−2 −500%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +600%	3−4 −600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Far Cry 5	23 +667%	3−4 −667%
Far Cry New Dawn	25 +525%	4−5 −525%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +500%	8−9 −500%
Hitman 3	20 +567%	3−4 −567%
Horizon Zero Dawn	116 +544%	18−20 −544%
Metro Exodus	28 +600%	4−5 −600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24 +500%	4−5 −500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	25 +525%	4−5 −525%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +633%	3−4 −633%
Watch Dogs: Legion	88 +529%	14−16 −529%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8 +700%	1−2 −700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6 +500%	1−2 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Far Cry 5	15 +650%	2−3 −650%
Forza Horizon 4	19 +533%	3−4 −533%
Hitman 3	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20 +567%	3−4 −567%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	19 +533%	3−4 −533%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16 +700%	2−3 −700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6 +500%	1−2 −500%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+567%

3−4
−567%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Far Cry 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +550%	4−5 −550%
Hitman 3	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +557%	7−8 −557%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+500%

2−3
−500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6	0−1
Hitman 3	3−4	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+600%

1−2

−600%

This is how GeForce MX350 and 8800 GT compete in popular games:

GeForce MX350 is 550% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX350 is 520% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX350 is 525% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.29	1.22
Recency	10 February 2020	29 October 2007
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	105 Watt

GeForce MX350 has a 497.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 425% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX350 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX350 is a notebook card while GeForce 8800 GT is a desktop one.

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