Radeon R7 350 vs R7 260X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 260X and Radeon R7 350, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 260X outperforms R7 350 by a considerable 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 477 | 570 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.28 | 0.82 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Bonaire | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (10 years ago) | 6 July 2016 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $139 | no data |
| Current price | $204 (1.5x MSRP) | $142 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R7 260X has 56% better value for money than R7 350.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 896 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 61.60 | 25.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,971 gflops | 819.2 gflops |
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 | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 170 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 4500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 104 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | 1 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | - | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | no data |
| Enduro | - | no data |
| FreeSync | 1 | no data |
| HD3D | - | no data |
| PowerTune | - | no data |
| TrueAudio | - | no data |
| ZeroCore | - | no data |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | - | no data |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.25 | 5.58 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 6 July 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 55 Watt |
The Radeon R7 260X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
