GeForce 320M vs MX350

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX350 and GeForce 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce MX350
2020
2 GB GDDR5, 20 Watt
6.28
+1236%

MX350 outperforms 320M by a whopping 1236% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5561242
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency24.911.62
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGP107C89
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date10 February 2020 (5 years ago)1 April 2010 (14 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 cores64048
Core clock speed747 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed937 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,300 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate29.987.200
Floating-point processing power1.199 TFLOPS0.0912 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs3216

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 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1752 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth56.06 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.44.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA6.1-

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.

GeForce MX350 6.28
+1236%
GeForce 320M 0.47

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.

GeForce MX350 2804
+1242%
GeForce 320M 209

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 HD26
+8.3%
24
−8.3%
1440p27
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
4K26
+2500%
1−2
−2500%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 31
+1450%
2−3
−1450%
Counter-Strike 2 66
+1550%
4−5
−1550%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+1500%
1−2
−1500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 24
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
Battlefield 5 37
+1750%
2−3
−1750%
Counter-Strike 2 50
+1567%
3−4
−1567%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Far Cry 5 27
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Fortnite 82
+1267%
6−7
−1267%
Forza Horizon 4 37
+825%
4−5
−825%
Forza Horizon 5 25
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%
Valorant 129
+361%
27−30
−361%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7
+250%
2−3
−250%
Battlefield 5 30
+1400%
2−3
−1400%
Counter-Strike 2 24
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120
+606%
16−18
−606%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
+500%
1−2
−500%
Dota 2 83
+655%
10−12
−655%
Far Cry 5 23
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Fortnite 43
+1333%
3−4
−1333%
Forza Horizon 4 26
+550%
4−5
−550%
Forza Horizon 5 16
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Grand Theft Auto V 35
+1650%
2−3
−1650%
Metro Exodus 12 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27
+575%
4−5
−575%
Valorant 116
+314%
27−30
−314%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+400%
1−2
−400%
Dota 2 76
+591%
10−12
−591%
Far Cry 5 21
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Forza Horizon 4 19
+375%
4−5
−375%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
+300%
4−5
−300%
Valorant 70−75
+164%
27−30
−164%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 27
+1250%
2−3
−1250%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
+5100%
1−2
−5100%
Grand Theft Auto V 9−10 0−1
Metro Exodus 6−7 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
Valorant 75−80
+1440%
5−6
−1440%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 5−6 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+20%
14−16
−20%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6 0−1
Valorant 35−40
+1067%
3−4
−1067%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 30
+1400%
2−3
−1400%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%

This is how GeForce MX350 and GeForce 320M compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX350 is 8% faster in 1080p
  • GeForce MX350 is 1250% faster in 1440p
  • GeForce MX350 is 2500% faster in 4K

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

  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX350 is 5100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GeForce MX350 surpassed GeForce 320M in all 30 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.28 0.47
Recency 10 February 2020 1 April 2010
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 23 Watt

GeForce MX350 has a 1236.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 15% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX350 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.

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 MX350
GeForce MX350
NVIDIA GeForce 320M
GeForce 320M

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.


3.5 1673 votes

Rate GeForce MX350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 62 votes

Rate GeForce 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce MX350 or GeForce 320M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.