GeForce MX350 vs GTX 760 Ti OEM

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM with GeForce MX350, including specs and performance data.

GTX 760 Ti OEM
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 170 Watt
12.97
+93.6%

760 Ti OEM outperforms MX350 by an impressive 94% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking417596
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.9125.97
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGK104GP107
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date27 September 2013 (12 years ago)10 February 2020 (5 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 cores1344640
Core clock speed915 MHz747 MHz
Boost clock speed980 MHz937 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)170 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate109.829.98
Floating-point processing power2.634 TFLOPS1.199 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs11232
L1 Cache112 KB240 KB
L2 Cache512 KB512 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length241 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-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 amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz1752 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.3 GB/s56.06 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA3.06.1

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.

GTX 760 Ti OEM 12.97
+93.6%
GeForce MX350 6.70

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.

GTX 760 Ti OEM 5474
+93.5%
Samples: 15
GeForce MX350 2829
Samples: 1112

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 760 Ti OEM 14104
+3.6%
GeForce MX350 13618

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%
1440p50−55
+85.2%
27
−85.2%
4K50−55
+92.3%
26
−92.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 66
+0%
66
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+0%
16
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 37
+0%
37
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 50
+0%
50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 36
+0%
36
+0%
Far Cry 5 27
+0%
27
+0%
Fortnite 82
+0%
82
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 37
+0%
37
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 129
+0%
129
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24
+0%
24
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120
+0%
120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
+0%
6
+0%
Dota 2 83
+0%
83
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 34
+0%
34
+0%
Far Cry 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Fortnite 43
+0%
43
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 26
+0%
26
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35
+0%
35
+0%
Metro Exodus 12
+0%
12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27
+0%
27
+0%
Valorant 116
+0%
116
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+0%
5
+0%
Dota 2 76
+0%
76
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 25
+0%
25
+0%
Far Cry 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 19
+0%
19
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
+0%
16
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 27
+0%
27
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 30
+0%
30
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

This is how GTX 760 Ti OEM and GeForce MX350 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 760 Ti OEM is 92% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 760 Ti OEM is 85% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 760 Ti OEM is 92% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.97 6.70
Recency 27 September 2013 10 February 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 170 Watt 20 Watt

GTX 760 Ti OEM has a 93.6% higher aggregate performance score.

GeForce MX350, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 750% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX350 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM is a desktop graphics card while GeForce MX350 is a notebook one.

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.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM
GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM
NVIDIA GeForce MX350
GeForce MX350

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.


3.6 95 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1751 votes

Rate GeForce MX350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM or GeForce MX350, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.