ATI Radeon IGP 340M vs GeForce MX350

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6051605
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency25.95no data
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Rage 6 (2000−2007)
GPU code nameGP107RS200
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date10 February 2020 (6 years ago)5 October 2002 (23 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 cores6402
Core clock speed747 MHz183 MHz
Boost clock speed937 MHz180 MHz
Number of transistors3,300 million30 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm180 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Wattno data
Texture fill rate29.980.37
Floating-point processing power1.199 TFLOPSno data
ROPs162
TMUs322
L1 Cache240 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KBno 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16AGP 4x
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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

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 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 support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)7.0
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.61.4
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA6.1-

Synthetic benchmarks

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



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 2817
+140750%
Samples: 1255
ATI IGP 340M 2
Samples: 4

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 HD26no data
1440p27no data
4K26no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 66 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 16 0−1
Resident Evil 4 Remake 18 no data

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 37 no data
Counter-Strike 2 50 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 11 0−1
Far Cry 5 27 no data
Fortnite 82 no data
Forza Horizon 4 37
+1750%
2−3
−1750%
Forza Horizon 5 25 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
Valorant 129
+461%
21−24
−461%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 30 no data
Counter-Strike 2 24 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120
+1233%
9−10
−1233%
Cyberpunk 2077 6 0−1
Dota 2 83
+1086%
7−8
−1086%
Far Cry 5 23 no data
Fortnite 43 no data
Forza Horizon 4 26
+1200%
2−3
−1200%
Forza Horizon 5 16 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 35 no data
Metro Exodus 12 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27
+575%
4−5
−575%
Valorant 116
+404%
21−24
−404%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 5 0−1
Dota 2 76
+986%
7−8
−986%
Far Cry 5 21 no data
Forza Horizon 4 19
+850%
2−3
−850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
+300%
4−5
−300%
Valorant 70−75
+222%
21−24
−222%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 27 no data

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8 no data
Metro Exodus 6−7 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 no data
Valorant 75−80 no data

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 12−14 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 no data
Far Cry 5 14−16 no data
Forza Horizon 4 16−18 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 14−16 no data

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 0−1 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Metro Exodus 2−3 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6 no data
Valorant 35−40 0−1

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 6−7 no data
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 no data
Dota 2 30 no data
Far Cry 5 6−7 no data
Forza Horizon 4 10−12 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX350 is 1750% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GeForce MX350 surpassed ATI IGP 340M in all 19 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Recency 10 February 2020 5 October 2002
Chip lithography 14 nm 180 nm

GeForce MX350 has an age advantage of 17 years, and a 1186% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce MX350 and Radeon IGP 340M. We've got no test results to judge.

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 1770 votes

Rate GeForce MX350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 340M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce MX350 or Radeon IGP 340M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.