Radeon Pro Vega 64X vs R7 350

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 350 with Radeon Pro Vega 64X, including specs and performance data.

R7 350
2016
2 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
5.16

Pro 64X outperforms R7 350 by a whopping 520% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking673192
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency7.229.85
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameCape VerdeVega 10
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date6 July 2016 (9 years ago)19 March 2019 (7 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 cores5124096
Core clock speed800 MHz1250 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1468 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate25.60375.8
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPS12.03 TFLOPS
ROPs1664
TMUs32256
L1 Cache128 KB1 MB
L2 Cache256 KB4 MB

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
Length168 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 typeGDDR5HBM2
Maximum RAM amount2 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit2048 Bit
Memory clock speed1125 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s512.0 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.125

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 5.16 31.97
Recency 6 July 2016 19 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 250 Watt

R7 350 has 355% lower power consumption.

Pro Vega 64X, on the other hand, has a 520% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 350 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega 64X is a mobile workstation one.

Other comparisons

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.


3.8 590 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 38 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 64X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 350 or Radeon Pro Vega 64X, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.