Radeon RX 7700 XT vs HD 8350G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8350G with Radeon RX 7700 XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 7700 XT outperforms HD 8350G by a whopping 8568% 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 | 1233 | 59 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 70.47 |
| Power efficiency | 1.35 | 16.72 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | Scrapper Lite | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 March 2013 (12 years ago) | 25 August 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 3456 |
| Core clock speed | 514 MHz | 1435 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 720 MHz | 2544 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 245 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.760 | 549.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1843 TFLOPS | 35.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 96 |
| TMUs | 8 | 216 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 54 |
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 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 432.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK 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 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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.
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.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 10
−1760%
| 186
+1760%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−10100%
| 102
+10100%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 59 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.41 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.40 |
| 4K | no data | 7.61 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−19200%
|
193
+19200%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−3740%
|
192
+3740%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−15700%
|
158
+15700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 188 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−5460%
|
278
+5460%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−3660%
|
188
+3660%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2088%
|
170−180
+2088%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−961%
|
290−300
+961%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−1363%
|
270−280
+1363%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−13100%
|
132
+13100%
|
| Dota 2 | 11
−8536%
|
950−1000
+8536%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 181 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−5340%
|
272
+5340%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−2880%
|
149
+2880%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−15100%
|
152
+15100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2088%
|
170−180
+2088%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4817%
|
295
+4817%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−961%
|
290−300
+961%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−12100%
|
122
+12100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10
−8400%
|
850−900
+8400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 167 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−4520%
|
231
+4520%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−1940%
|
102
+1940%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2088%
|
170−180
+2088%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−2700%
|
168
+2700%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−961%
|
290−300
+961%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−6250%
|
127
+6250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−19650%
|
350−400
+19650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2400%
|
170−180
+2400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−9750%
|
197
+9750%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−14900%
|
150−160
+14900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−647%
|
112
+647%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−10200%
|
300−350
+10200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 351
+0%
|
351
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 344
+0%
|
344
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 243
+0%
|
243
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80
+0%
|
80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 157
+0%
|
157
+0%
|
| God of War | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 120
+0%
|
120
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
| God of War | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
This is how HD 8350G and RX 7700 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 7700 XT is 1760% faster in 1080p
- RX 7700 XT is 10100% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 7700 XT is 19650% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 7700 XT performs better in 30 tests (51%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (49%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.62 | 53.74 |
| Recency | 12 March 2013 | 25 August 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 245 Watt |
HD 8350G has 600% lower power consumption.
RX 7700 XT, on the other hand, has a 8567.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 7700 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8350G in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8350G is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX 7700 XT 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.
