GeForce RTX 5080 vs Radeon HD 8350G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8350G with GeForce RTX 5080, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5080 outperforms HD 8350G by a whopping 10670% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1153 | 5 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 36.63 |
| Power efficiency | 1.55 | 16.27 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Scrapper Lite | GB203 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 March 2013 (11 years ago) | 30 January 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
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 | 128 | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | 514 MHz | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 720 MHz | 2617 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 360 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.760 | 879.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1843 TFLOPS | 56.28 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 128 |
| TMUs | 8 | 336 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 84 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 304 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-pin |
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 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1875 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 960.0 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 10.1 |
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. 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.
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.
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 | 11
−10355%
| 1150−1200
+10355%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 0.87 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−9900%
|
300−310
+9900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−9900%
|
300−310
+9900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−10614%
|
750−800
+10614%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−9900%
|
300−310
+9900%
|
| Dota 2 | 4
−9900%
|
400−450
+9900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−10400%
|
210−220
+10400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−10614%
|
750−800
+10614%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| World of Tanks | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−9900%
|
300−310
+9900%
|
| Dota 2 | 10
−10400%
|
1050−1100
+10400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−10614%
|
750−800
+10614%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−9900%
|
400−450
+9900%
|
| World of Tanks | 3−4
−9900%
|
300−310
+9900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−9900%
|
300−310
+9900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−9900%
|
400−450
+9900%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−10567%
|
1600−1650
+10567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−10400%
|
210−220
+10400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−10567%
|
1600−1650
+10567%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−9900%
|
100−105
+9900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−10400%
|
210−220
+10400%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−10567%
|
1600−1650
+10567%
|
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
This is how HD 8350G and RTX 5080 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5080 is 10355% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 8350G is 150% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8350G is ahead in 12 tests (71%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (29%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.79 | 85.08 |
| Recency | 12 March 2013 | 30 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 360 Watt |
HD 8350G has 928.6% lower power consumption.
RTX 5080, on the other hand, has a 10669.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8350G in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8350G is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 5080 is a desktop one.
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.
