NVS 4200M vs Radeon R7 350

Place in the ranking	603	1159
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	6.99	2.04
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Cape Verde	GF119
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	6 July 2016 (8 years ago)	22 February 2011 (13 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 cores	512	48
Core clock speed	800 MHz	810 MHz
Number of transistors	1,500 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	25.60	6.480
Floating-point processing power	0.8192 TFLOPS	0.1555 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	4
TMUs	32	8

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).

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM
Length	168 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	GDDR5	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1125 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	12.8 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	-	2.1

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

95−100
+631%

−631%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

This is how R7 350 and NVS 4200M compete in popular games:

R7 350 is 631% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 35 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.59	0.74
Recency	6 July 2016	22 February 2011
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	25 Watt

R7 350 has a 655.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 4200M, on the other hand, has 120% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 350 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 4200M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 350 is a desktop card while NVS 4200M is a mobile workstation one.

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