GeForce GTX 260 vs MX350

Place in the ranking	538	751
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.16
Power efficiency	25.01	1.19
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GP107	GT200
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	10 February 2020 (4 years ago)	16 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$449

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	192
Core clock speed	747 MHz	576 MHz
Boost clock speed	937 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,300 million	1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	182 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	29.98	36.86
Floating-point processing power	1.199 TFLOPS	0.4769 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	28
TMUs	32	64

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	2x 6-pin
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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	896 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	448 Bit
Memory clock speed	1752 MHz	999 MHz
Memory bandwidth	56.06 GB/s	111.9 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	+
HDMI	-	+
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.

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 7.30
+132%

GTX 260 3.15

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
+131%

GTX 260 1215

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 +160%	10−12 −160%
1440p	31 +158%	12−14 −158%
4K	25 +150%	10−12 −150%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	44.90
1440p	no data	37.42
4K	no data	44.90

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14

+140%

5−6
−140%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	22 +144%	9−10 −144%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +160%	5−6 −160%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +133%	9−10 −133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	19 +138%	8−9 −138%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Far Cry 5	26 +160%	10−11 −160%
Far Cry New Dawn	35 +150%	14−16 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +167%	18−20 −167%
Hitman 3	20 +150%	8−9 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	129 +135%	55−60 −135%
Metro Exodus	37 +164%	14−16 −164%
Red Dead Redemption 2	32 +167%	12−14 −167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +140%	10−11 −140%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95 +138%	40−45 −138%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	26 +160%	10−11 −160%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6 +200%	2−3 −200%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +133%	9−10 −133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	17 +143%	7−8 −143%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Far Cry 5	23 +156%	9−10 −156%
Far Cry New Dawn	25 +150%	10−11 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +167%	18−20 −167%
Hitman 3	20 +150%	8−9 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	116 +132%	50−55 −132%
Metro Exodus	28 +133%	12−14 −133%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24 +140%	10−11 −140%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	25 +150%	10−11 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +144%	9−10 −144%
Watch Dogs: Legion	88 +151%	35−40 −151%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8 +167%	3−4 −167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6 +200%	2−3 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Far Cry 5	15 +150%	6−7 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	19 +138%	8−9 −138%
Hitman 3	17 +143%	7−8 −143%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20 +150%	8−9 −150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	19 +138%	8−9 −138%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16 +167%	6−7 −167%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6 +200%	2−3 −200%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+150%

8−9
−150%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +160%	10−11 −160%
Hitman 3	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +150%	6−7 −150%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +156%	18−20 −156%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+140%

5−6
−140%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Hitman 3	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +140%	10−11 −140%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
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 GTX 260 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX350 is 160% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX350 is 158% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX350 is 150% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.30	3.15
Recency	10 February 2020	16 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	896 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	182 Watt

GeForce MX350 has a 131.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 128.6% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 810% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX350 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX350 is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop one.

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