GeForce RTX 4050 vs Radeon R7 350
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 350 and GeForce RTX 4050, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 4050 outperforms R7 350 by a whopping 570% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 597 | 120 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 41 |
| Power efficiency | 7.03 | 25.88 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | AD107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 July 2016 (8 years ago) | 2023 (1 year 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 cores | 512 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 2505 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2640 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 18,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.60 | 211.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8192 TFLOPS | 13.52 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 120 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 18 |
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 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 12-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 216.0 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | + | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
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 | 5.58 | 37.37 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 100 Watt |
R7 350 has 81.8% lower power consumption.
RTX 4050, on the other hand, has a 569.7% higher aggregate performance score, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4050 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.
