GeForce GTS 350M vs GT 650M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 650M SLI and GeForce GTS 350M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GT 650M SLI outperforms GTS 350M by a whopping 380% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 631 | 1095 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.61 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | N13E-GE | GT215 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (15 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 | 768 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 790 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 835 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 16.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.24 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 360 |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 32 |
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 | medium sized | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | MXM-II |
| SLI options | - | + |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | 2x2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | Up to 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 51.2 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 | no data | DisplayPortLVDSHDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
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:
| 900p | 79
+394%
| 16−18
−394%
|
| Full HD | 49
+390%
| 10−12
−390%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+258%
|
12−14
−258%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| World of Tanks | 139
+479%
|
24−27
−479%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+258%
|
12−14
−258%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 35−40
+620%
|
5−6
−620%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
This is how GT 650M SLI and GTS 350M compete in popular games:
- GT 650M SLI is 394% faster in 900p
- GT 650M SLI is 390% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 650M SLI is 650% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 650M SLI is ahead in 33 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.09 | 1.06 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 7 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
GT 650M SLI has a 380.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GT 650M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 350M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
