GeForce GTX 260M vs MX350

Place in performance ranking	505	1070
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation	no data	0.07
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code name	N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1	N10E-GT
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	20 February 2020 (4 years ago)	2 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Current price	no data	$109

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed Specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	640	112
CUDA cores	no data	112
Core clock speed	1354 MHz	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	1468 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,300 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	29.98	31 billion/sec
Floating-point performance	no data	308 gflops
Gigaflops	no data	462

Form Factor & Compatibility

Information on GeForce MX350 and GeForce GTX 260M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	no data	large
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data
SLI options	no data	2-way
MXM Type	no data	MXM 3.0 Type-B

Memory type	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	7000 MHz	Up to 950 MHz
Memory bandwidth	56.06 GB/s	61 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	DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI
HDMI	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported Technologies

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

Optimus	+	no data
Power management	no data	8.0

API Compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	6.1	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce MX350 7.25
+640%

GTX 260M 0.98

MX350 outperforms GTX 260M by 640% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GeForce MX350 2805
+640%

GTX 260M 379

MX350 outperforms GTX 260M by 640% in Passmark.

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 −11.5%	29 +11.5%
1440p	27 +800%	3−4 −800%
4K	26 +767%	3−4 −767%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−12
+267%

3−4

−267%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	22 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Battlefield 5	37 +640%	5−6 −640%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	32 +256%	9−10 −256%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Far Cry 5	27 +800%	3−4 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	28 +833%	3−4 −833%
Forza Horizon 4	37 +640%	5−6 −640%
Hitman 3	22 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	18 +500%	3−4 −500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	23 +283%	6−7 −283%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18 +800%	2−3 −800%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6	0−1
Battlefield 5	30 +650%	4−5 −650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20 +122%	9−10 −122%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Far Cry 5	23 +667%	3−4 −667%
Far Cry New Dawn	26 +767%	3−4 −767%
Forza Horizon 4	26 +767%	3−4 −767%
Hitman 3	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12	0−1
Metro Exodus	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	15 +150%	6−7 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27 +800%	3−4 −800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8 +700%	1−2 −700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Battlefield 5	24 +700%	3−4 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Far Cry 5	21 +950%	2−3 −950%
Far Cry New Dawn	23 +667%	3−4 −667%
Forza Horizon 4	19 +850%	2−3 −850%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16 +433%	3−4 −433%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Hitman 3	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Hitman 3	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

This is how GeForce MX350 and GTX 260M compete in popular games:

GTX 260M is 11.5% faster than GeForce MX350 in 1080p
GeForce MX350 is 800% faster than GTX 260M in 1440p
GeForce MX350 is 767% faster than GTX 260M in 4K

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

in Hitman 3, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX350 is 2100% faster than the GTX 260M.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, GeForce MX350 surpassed GTX 260M in all 27 of our tests.

Pros & Cons Summary

Performance score	7.25	0.98
Recency	20 February 2020	2 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	75 Watt