GeForce 840M vs MX350
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX350 and GeForce 840M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX350 outperforms 840M by a whopping 157% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 546 | 803 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 25.05 | 5.92 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | GM108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 February 2020 (5 years ago) | 12 March 2014 (10 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 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 747 MHz | 1029 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 937 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 29.98 | 17.98 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.199 TFLOPS | 0.8632 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).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | 1001 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 16.02 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 outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | no data | 2.0 |
| Optimus | + | + |
| GameWorks | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| 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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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 | 110−120
+144%
| 45
−144%
|
| Full HD | 27
+50%
| 18
−50%
|
| 1440p | 31
+158%
| 12−14
−158%
|
| 4K | 26
+160%
| 10−12
−160%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 31
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24
+243%
|
7−8
−243%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 37
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Fortnite | 82
+486%
|
14−16
−486%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37
+185%
|
12−14
−185%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+92.3%
|
12−14
−92.3%
|
| Valorant | 129
+193%
|
40−45
−193%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120
+161%
|
46
−161%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 83
+207%
|
27−30
−207%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Fortnite | 43
+207%
|
14−16
−207%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+92.3%
|
12−14
−92.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27
+200%
|
9
−200%
|
| Valorant | 116
+164%
|
40−45
−164%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 76
+181%
|
27−30
−181%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 19
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+92.3%
|
12−14
−92.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+167%
|
6
−167%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+68.2%
|
40−45
−68.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+179%
|
18−20
−179%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+95%
|
20−22
−95%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+212%
|
24−27
−212%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 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
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+169%
|
12−14
−169%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 30
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GeForce MX350 and GeForce 840M compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX350 is 144% faster in 900p
- GeForce MX350 is 50% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX350 is 158% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX350 is 160% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX350 is 800% faster.
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce 840M is 20% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX350 is ahead in 55 tests (93%)
- GeForce 840M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.26 | 2.83 |
| Recency | 10 February 2020 | 12 March 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 33 Watt |
GeForce MX350 has a 156.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 65% lower power consumption.
GeForce 840M, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce MX350 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 840M 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.
