GeForce 320M vs MX350
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX350 and GeForce 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX350 outperforms 320M by a whopping 1236% 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 | 557 | 1242 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 24.91 | 1.62 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | C89 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 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 cores | 640 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 747 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 937 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 29.98 | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.199 TFLOPS | 0.0912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 16 |
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 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | No 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.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| 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.
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
+8.3%
| 24
−8.3%
|
| 1440p | 27
+1250%
| 2−3
−1250%
|
| 4K | 26
+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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
