GeForce GTX 480M SLI vs MX350
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX350 and GeForce GTX 480M SLI, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX350 outperforms GTX 480M SLI by a moderate 13% 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 | 582 | 617 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 25.60 | 4.54 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | N11E-GTX-A3 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 February 2020 (5 years ago) | 25 May 2010 (15 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 | 704 |
| Core clock speed | 747 MHz | 425 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 937 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 6000 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 29.98 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.199 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 32 | no data |
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 | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | no data |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | no data |
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 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
| 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.
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.
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 | 65−70
+6.6%
| 61
−6.6%
|
| Full HD | 26
−165%
| 69
+165%
|
| 1440p | 27
+28.6%
| 21−24
−28.6%
|
| 4K | 26
+23.8%
| 21−24
−23.8%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 66
+128%
|
27−30
−128%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 26
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 37
+42.3%
|
24−27
−42.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50
+72.4%
|
27−30
−72.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+42.1%
|
18−20
−42.1%
|
| Fortnite | 82
+122%
|
35−40
−122%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37
+32.1%
|
27−30
−32.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 25
+47.1%
|
16−18
−47.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+8.7%
|
21−24
−8.7%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 14
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Valorant | 129
+87%
|
65−70
−87%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30
+15.4%
|
24−27
−15.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24
−20.8%
|
27−30
+20.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120
+18.8%
|
100−110
−18.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 83
+69.4%
|
45−50
−69.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+21.1%
|
18−20
−21.1%
|
| Fortnite | 43
+16.2%
|
35−40
−16.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
−7.7%
|
27−30
+7.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+8.7%
|
21−24
−8.7%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 13
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| Valorant | 116
+68.1%
|
65−70
−68.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Dota 2 | 76
+55.1%
|
45−50
−55.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+10.5%
|
18−20
−10.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 19
−47.4%
|
27−30
+47.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+8.7%
|
21−24
−8.7%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+7.2%
|
65−70
−7.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27
−37%
|
35−40
+37%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+12.8%
|
45−50
−12.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+2.6%
|
35−40
−2.6%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+13.2%
|
65−70
−13.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+5.9%
|
16−18
−5.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+12.9%
|
30−35
−12.9%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 30
+36.4%
|
21−24
−36.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
This is how GeForce MX350 and GTX 480M SLI compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX350 is 7% faster in 900p
- GTX 480M SLI is 165% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX350 is 29% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX350 is 24% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Sons of the Forest, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GeForce MX350 is 189% faster.
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 480M SLI is 140% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX350 is ahead in 52 tests (83%)
- GTX 480M SLI is ahead in 9 tests (14%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.72 | 5.96 |
| Recency | 10 February 2020 | 25 May 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 100 Watt |
GeForce MX350 has a 12.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
GTX 480M SLI, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce MX350 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 480M SLI 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.
