GeForce GTX 285 vs MX350
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX350 with GeForce GTX 285, including specs and performance data.
MX350 outperforms GTX 285 by an impressive 93% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 611 | 790 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.26 |
| Power efficiency | 26.11 | 1.32 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | GT200B |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 February 2020 (6 years ago) | 23 December 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $359 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 240 |
| Core clock speed | 747 MHz | 648 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 937 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 204 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 29.98 | 51.84 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.199 TFLOPS | 0.7085 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 80 |
| L1 Cache | 240 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 256 KB |
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 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | 1242 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 159.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 Connectors | No outputs | HDTVTwo Dual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | no data | 128bit |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 26
+117%
| 12−14
−117%
|
| 1440p | 27
+125%
| 12−14
−125%
|
| 4K | 26
+117%
| 12−14
−117%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 29.92 |
| 1440p | no data | 29.92 |
| 4K | no data | 29.92 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 31
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 66
+120%
|
30−33
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 24
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 37
+106%
|
18−20
−106%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50
+108%
|
24−27
−108%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Fortnite | 82
+105%
|
40−45
−105%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37
+106%
|
18−20
−106%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 25
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Valorant | 129
+98.5%
|
65−70
−98.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 7
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120
+100%
|
60−65
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 83
+108%
|
40−45
−108%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| Fortnite | 43
+105%
|
21−24
−105%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Valorant | 116
+111%
|
55−60
−111%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 76
+117%
|
35−40
−117%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 19
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+109%
|
35−40
−109%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+117%
|
24−27
−117%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+97.1%
|
35−40
−97.1%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 30
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
This is how GeForce MX350 and GTX 285 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX350 is 117% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX350 is 125% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX350 is 117% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.75 | 3.49 |
| Recency | 10 February 2020 | 23 December 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 204 Watt |
GeForce MX350 has a 93% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 293% more advanced lithography process, and 920% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX350 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX350 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 285 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
