GeForce MX350 vs Radeon R9 280

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 with GeForce MX350, including specs and performance data.

R9 280
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
14.42
+97.5%

R9 280 outperforms MX350 by an impressive 98% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking365538
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.41no data
Power efficiency4.9425.02
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameTahitiGP107
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (10 years ago)10 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 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 cores1792640
Core clock speedno data747 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHz937 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate104.529.98
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPS1.199 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs11232

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinNone

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 amount3 GB2 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1752 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data
Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA-6.1

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.

R9 280 14.42
+97.5%
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.

R9 280 5558
+97.7%
GeForce MX350 2811

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.

R9 280 8020
+83.5%
GeForce MX350 4371

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 HD50−55
+92.3%
26
−92.3%
1440p60−65
+93.5%
31
−93.5%
4K45−50
+80%
25
−80%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.58no data
1440p4.65no data
4K6.20no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 22
+0%
22
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 19
+0%
19
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 35
+0%
35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Hitman 3 20
+0%
20
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 129
+0%
129
+0%
Metro Exodus 37
+0%
37
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 32
+0%
32
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95
+0%
95
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 26
+0%
26
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6
+0%
6
+0%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 17
+0%
17
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 25
+0%
25
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Hitman 3 20
+0%
20
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 116
+0%
116
+0%
Metro Exodus 28
+0%
28
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24
+0%
24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 25
+0%
25
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 88
+0%
88
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8
+0%
8
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6
+0%
6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 19
+0%
19
+0%
Hitman 3 17
+0%
17
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20
+0%
20
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 19
+0%
19
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
+0%
16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6
+0%
6
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20
+0%
20
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hitman 3 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

This is how R9 280 and GeForce MX350 compete in popular games:

  • R9 280 is 92% faster in 1080p
  • R9 280 is 94% faster in 1440p
  • R9 280 is 80% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.42 7.30
Recency 4 March 2014 10 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 20 Watt

R9 280 has a 97.5% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX350, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX350 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop 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.


AMD Radeon R9 280
Radeon R9 280
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.


3.6 399 votes

Rate Radeon R9 280 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.