GeForce 920M vs MX350

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX350 and GeForce 920M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce MX350
2020
2 GB GDDR5, 20 Watt
7.30
+292%

MX350 outperforms 920M by a whopping 292% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking538915
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency25.013.86
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code nameGP107GK208B
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date10 February 2020 (4 years ago)13 March 2015 (9 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 cores640384
Core clock speed747 MHz954 MHz
Boost clock speed937 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,300 million915 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt33 Watt
Texture fill rate29.9830.53
Floating-point processing power1.199 TFLOPS0.7327 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs3232

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 supportno dataPCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1752 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth56.06 GB/s14.4 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

Supported technologies

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

GPU Boostno data2.0
Optimus++
GameWorks-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.126
CUDA6.1+

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 7.30
+292%
GeForce 920M 1.86

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 2811
+292%
GeForce 920M 718

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.

GeForce MX350 6166
+259%
GeForce 920M 1719

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.

GeForce MX350 4371
+276%
GeForce 920M 1162

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.

GeForce MX350 24744
+242%
GeForce 920M 7242

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.

GeForce MX350 13490
+264%
GeForce 920M 3709

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.

GeForce MX350 285166
+215%
GeForce 920M 90619

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GeForce MX350 1336
+306%
GeForce 920M 329

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.

GeForce MX350 13921
+333%
GeForce 920M 3215

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.

GeForce MX350 12572
+355%
GeForce 920M 2766

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 HD26
+73.3%
15
−73.3%
1440p31
+343%
7−8
−343%
4K25
+317%
6−7
−317%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 22
+214%
7−8
−214%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+333%
3−4
−333%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 19
+280%
5−6
−280%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Far Cry 5 26
+767%
3−4
−767%
Far Cry New Dawn 35
+600%
5−6
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+586%
7−8
−586%
Hitman 3 20
+233%
6−7
−233%
Horizon Zero Dawn 129
+659%
16−18
−659%
Metro Exodus 37
+311%
9−10
−311%
Red Dead Redemption 2 32
+700%
4−5
−700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+167%
9−10
−167%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95
+171%
35−40
−171%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 26
+73.3%
15
−73.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6
+500%
1−2
−500%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 17
+240%
5−6
−240%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Far Cry 5 23
+667%
3−4
−667%
Far Cry New Dawn 25
+400%
5−6
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+586%
7−8
−586%
Hitman 3 20
+233%
6−7
−233%
Horizon Zero Dawn 116
+582%
16−18
−582%
Metro Exodus 28
+300%
7−8
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24
+500%
4−5
−500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 25
+178%
9−10
−178%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+29.4%
17
−29.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 88
+151%
35−40
−151%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6
+20%
5−6
−20%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Far Cry 5 15
+400%
3−4
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 19
+171%
7−8
−171%
Hitman 3 17
+183%
6−7
−183%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20
+17.6%
16−18
−17.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 19
+111%
9−10
−111%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
+300%
4
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6
−483%
35−40
+483%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20
+400%
4−5
−400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%

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
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+333%
6−7
−333%
Hitman 3 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+360%
10−11
−360%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Hitman 3 3−4 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
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
+133%
3−4
−133%

This is how GeForce MX350 and GeForce 920M compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX350 is 73% faster in 1080p
  • GeForce MX350 is 343% faster in 1440p
  • GeForce MX350 is 317% faster in 4K

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

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX350 is 2000% faster.
  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce 920M is 483% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce MX350 is ahead in 52 tests (98%)
  • GeForce 920M is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.30 1.86
Recency 10 February 2020 13 March 2015
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 33 Watt

GeForce MX350 has a 292.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 65% lower power consumption.

GeForce 920M, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The GeForce MX350 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 920M 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 MX350
GeForce MX350
NVIDIA GeForce 920M
GeForce 920M

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.


3.5 1626 votes

Rate GeForce MX350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 1320 votes

Rate GeForce 920M 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.