Radeon HD 6350 vs HD 8550G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8550G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics with Radeon HD 6350, including specs and performance data.
HD 8550G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics outperforms HD 6350 by a whopping 458% 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 | 939 | 1339 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.32 |
| Architecture | no data | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | no data | Park |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 August 2013 (12 years ago) | 7 February 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $23 |
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 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 720 / 975 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 19 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 5.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.104 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
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 | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 6.4 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | no data | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+533%
|
6−7
−533%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+550%
|
6−7
−550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+533%
|
6−7
−533%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+533%
|
6−7
−533%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.84 | 0.33 |
| Recency | 1 August 2013 | 7 February 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
HD 8550G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics has a 457.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 8550G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6350 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8550G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 6350 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.
