GeForce MX350 vs Quadro P2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P2000 with GeForce MX350, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P2000
2017
5 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
18.86
+158%

P2000 outperforms MX350 by a whopping 158% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking295538
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.55no data
Power efficiency17.2425.02
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGP106GP107
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date6 February 2017 (7 years ago)10 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$585 no data

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 cores1024640
Core clock speed1076 MHz747 MHz
Boost clock speed1480 MHz937 MHz
Number of transistors4,400 million3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate94.7229.98
Floating-point processing power3.031 TFLOPS1.199 TFLOPS
ROPs4016
TMUs6432

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length201 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 amount5 GB2 GB
Memory bus width160 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1752 MHz1752 MHz
Memory bandwidth140.2 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortNo outputs

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.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA6.16.1

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.

Quadro P2000 18.86
+158%
GeForce MX350 7.30

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.

Quadro P2000 7268
+159%
GeForce MX350 2811

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.

Quadro P2000 8387
+36%
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.

Quadro P2000 6847
+56.6%
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.

Quadro P2000 43566
+76.1%
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.

Quadro P2000 22904
+69.8%
GeForce MX350 13490

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.

Quadro P2000 350317
+22.8%
GeForce MX350 285166

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.

Quadro P2000 23641
+69.8%
GeForce MX350 13921

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.

Quadro P2000 21668
+72.4%
GeForce MX350 12572

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 HD56
+115%
26
−115%
1440p22
−40.9%
31
+40.9%
4K16
−56.3%
25
+56.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p10.45no data
1440p26.59no data
4K36.56no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+150%
12−14
−150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+90.9%
22
−90.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+138%
13
−138%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+195%
21−24
−195%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+100%
19
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+150%
12−14
−150%
Far Cry 5 42
+61.5%
26
−61.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+45.7%
35
−45.7%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+146%
45−50
−146%
Hitman 3 35−40
+85%
20
−85%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
−40.2%
129
+40.2%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+75.7%
37
−75.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+59.4%
32
−59.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 77
+221%
24−27
−221%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
−8%
95
+8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+61.5%
26
−61.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+417%
6
−417%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+195%
21−24
−195%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+124%
17
−124%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+150%
12−14
−150%
Far Cry 5 33
+43.5%
23
−43.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+104%
25
−104%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+146%
45−50
−146%
Hitman 3 35−40
+85%
20
−85%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
−26.1%
116
+26.1%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+132%
28
−132%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+113%
24
−113%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+148%
25
−148%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+95.5%
21−24
−95.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+0%
88
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+425%
8
−425%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+533%
6
−533%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+150%
12−14
−150%
Far Cry 5 26
+73.3%
15
−73.3%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+521%
19
−521%
Hitman 3 35−40
+118%
17
−118%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+360%
20
−360%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+226%
19
−226%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 25
+56.3%
16
−56.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+1367%
6
−1367%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+155%
20
−155%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+157%
14−16
−157%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+164%
10−12
−164%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+200%
7−8
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Far Cry 5 14
+75%
8−9
−75%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+300%
24−27
−300%
Hitman 3 21−24
+100%
10−12
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+153%
14−16
−153%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+338%
8−9
−338%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+143%
45−50
−143%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+158%
12−14
−158%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+200%
6−7
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Hitman 3 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100
+304%
24−27
−304%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+225%
4−5
−225%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 7
+75%
4−5
−75%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+225%
8−9
−225%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%

This is how Quadro P2000 and GeForce MX350 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P2000 is 115% faster in 1080p
  • GeForce MX350 is 41% faster in 1440p
  • GeForce MX350 is 56% 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 Quadro P2000 is 1367% faster.
  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX350 is 40% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro P2000 is ahead in 68 tests (94%)
  • GeForce MX350 is ahead in 3 tests (4%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.86 7.30
Recency 6 February 2017 10 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount 5 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 20 Watt

Quadro P2000 has a 158.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 150% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX350, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 275% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX350 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation card while GeForce MX350 is a notebook one.


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 Quadro P2000
Quadro P2000
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.


3.5 638 votes

Rate Quadro P2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1626 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.