GeForce MX350 vs Radeon R9 290X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290X with GeForce MX350, including specs and performance data.

R9 290X
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
19.24
+165%

R9 290X outperforms MX350 by a whopping 165% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking285532
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.82no data
Power efficiency4.7926.25
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameHawaiiGP107
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date24 October 2013 (11 years ago)10 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 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 cores2816640
Core clock speedno data747 MHz
Boost clock speed947 MHz937 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate176.029.98
Floating-point processing power5.632 TFLOPS1.199 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs17632

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 amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1752 MHz
Memory bandwidth320 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, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
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 Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
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 290X 19.24
+165%
GeForce MX350 7.27

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 290X 7425
+165%
GeForce MX350 2805

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

R9 290X 16168
+162%
GeForce MX350 6166

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 290X 11717
+168%
GeForce MX350 4371

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

R9 290X 73987
+199%
GeForce MX350 24744

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

R9 290X 332042
+16.4%
GeForce MX350 285166

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 HD83
+207%
27
−207%
1440p70−75
+159%
27
−159%
4K51
+96.2%
26
−96.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+150%
12−14
−150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+95.5%
22
−95.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+146%
13
−146%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+200%
21−24
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+105%
19
−105%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+150%
12−14
−150%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+73.1%
26
−73.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+48.6%
35
−48.6%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+150%
45−50
−150%
Hitman 3 35−40
+85%
20
−85%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
−38.7%
129
+38.7%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+78.4%
37
−78.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+62.5%
32
−62.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+163%
24−27
−163%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95
−5.6%
95
+5.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+65.4%
26
−65.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+433%
6
−433%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+200%
21−24
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+129%
17
−129%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+150%
12−14
−150%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+95.7%
23
−95.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+108%
25
−108%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+150%
45−50
−150%
Hitman 3 35−40
+85%
20
−85%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
−24.7%
116
+24.7%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+136%
28
−136%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+117%
24
−117%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+152%
25
−152%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 137
+523%
21−24
−523%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95
+2.3%
88
−2.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+438%
8
−438%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+220%
10−11
−220%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+550%
6
−550%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+150%
12−14
−150%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+200%
15
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+532%
19
−532%
Hitman 3 35−40
+118%
17
−118%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+365%
20
−365%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+232%
19
−232%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+81.3%
16
−81.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95
+1400%
6
−1400%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+160%
20
−160%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+164%
14−16
−164%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+164%
10−12
−164%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+186%
7−8
−186%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+200%
7−8
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+175%
8−9
−175%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+308%
24−27
−308%
Hitman 3 21−24
+109%
10−12
−109%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+160%
14−16
−160%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+350%
8−9
−350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+267%
6−7
−267%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+148%
45−50
−148%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+167%
12−14
−167%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+217%
6−7
−217%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Hitman 3 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100
+313%
24−27
−313%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+600%
4−5
−600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+225%
8−9
−225%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%

This is how R9 290X and GeForce MX350 compete in popular games:

  • R9 290X is 207% faster in 1080p
  • R9 290X is 159% faster in 1440p
  • R9 290X is 96% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 290X is 1400% faster.
  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX350 is 39% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 290X is ahead in 69 tests (96%)
  • GeForce MX350 is ahead in 3 tests (4%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.24 7.27
Recency 24 October 2013 10 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 20 Watt

R9 290X has a 164.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX350, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 1150% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX350 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290X 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 290X
Radeon R9 290X
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.


4.1 446 votes

Rate Radeon R9 290X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1609 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.