Radeon R7 350 vs 860M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 860M with Radeon R7 350, including specs and performance data.
860M outperforms R7 350 by a whopping 115% 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 | 426 | 623 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 54.65 | 6.94 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Strix Point | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | March 2025 (recently) | 6 July 2016 (8 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 | 512 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 34,000 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 96.00 | 25.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.072 TFLOPS | 0.8192 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1125 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 72 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 | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.131 |
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 | 25
+150%
| 10−12
−150%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+126%
|
27−30
−126%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+126%
|
27−30
−126%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+131%
|
16−18
−131%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+120%
|
30−33
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+129%
|
21−24
−129%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+124%
|
45−50
−124%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+126%
|
27−30
−126%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+117%
|
75−80
−117%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+131%
|
16−18
−131%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+120%
|
30−33
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+129%
|
21−24
−129%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+124%
|
45−50
−124%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+131%
|
16−18
−131%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+129%
|
21−24
−129%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65−70
+120%
|
30−33
−120%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+143%
|
35−40
−143%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+122%
|
55−60
−122%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+119%
|
27−30
−119%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
This is how Radeon 860M and R7 350 compete in popular games:
- Radeon 860M is 150% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.98 | 5.11 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 55 Watt |
Radeon 860M has a 114.9% higher aggregate performance score, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 266.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 860M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 860M is a notebook card while Radeon R7 350 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
