Radeon R7 350 vs HD 7770
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7770 and Radeon R7 350, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 7770 outperforms R7 350 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 604 | 606 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.43 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.87 | 7.03 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 February 2012 (12 years ago) | 6 July 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $159 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 40.00 | 25.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.28 TFLOPS | 0.8192 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 32 |
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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 210 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 1125 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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:
| 900p | 47
+4.4%
| 45−50
−4.4%
|
| Full HD | 46
+2.2%
| 45−50
−2.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.46 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Elden Ring | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Elden Ring | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+12.5%
|
24−27
−12.5%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+4.4%
|
45−50
−4.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| World of Tanks | 128
+6.7%
|
120−130
−6.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+12.5%
|
24−27
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+4.4%
|
45−50
−4.4%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Elden Ring | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 40−45
+2.5%
|
40−45
−2.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Elden Ring | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
This is how HD 7770 and R7 350 compete in popular games:
- HD 7770 is 4% faster in 900p
- HD 7770 is 2% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.65 | 5.60 |
| Recency | 15 February 2012 | 6 July 2016 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 55 Watt |
HD 7770 has a 0.9% higher aggregate performance score.
R7 350, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, and 45.5% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 7770 and Radeon R7 350.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
