GeForce MX350 vs Radeon Pro 5300M

Place in performance ranking	320	507
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.65	no data
Architecture	Navi / RDNA (2019−2020)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Navi 14	N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	13 November 2019 (4 years ago)	20 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Current price	$2068	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1280	640
Core clock speed	no data	1354 MHz
Boost clock speed	1250 MHz	1468 MHz
Number of transistors	6,400 million	3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	100.0	29.98

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon Pro 5300M and GeForce MX350 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	12000 MHz	7000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 GB/s	56.06 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

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus

no data

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.5	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	no data	6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

Pro 5300M 15.47
+113%

GeForce MX350 7.25

Radeon Pro 5300M outperforms GeForce MX350 by 113% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Pro 5300M 5988
+114%

GeForce MX350 2804

Radeon Pro 5300M outperforms GeForce MX350 by 114% in Passmark.

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	55−60 +112%	26 −112%
1440p	55−60 +104%	27 −104%
4K	55−60 +112%	26 −112%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

24−27
+118%

10−12

−118%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +45.5%	22 −45.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +100%	13 −100%
Battlefield 5	50−55 +43.2%	37 −43.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45 +25%	32 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +118%	10−12 −118%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +48.1%	27 −48.1%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +50%	28 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +45.9%	37 −45.9%
Hitman 3	40−45 +95.5%	22 −95.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +100%	16 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +44.4%	18 −44.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 +39.1%	23 −39.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +61.1%	18 −61.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +129%	14 −129%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +333%	6 −333%
Battlefield 5	50−55 +76.7%	30 −76.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45 +100%	20 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +118%	10−12 −118%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +73.9%	23 −73.9%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +61.5%	26 −61.5%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +108%	26 −108%
Hitman 3	40−45 +139%	18 −139%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +167%	12 −167%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +100%	12 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +100%	12−14 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 +113%	15 −113%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +18.5%	27 −18.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +107%	14 −107%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +300%	8 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +189%	9−10 −189%
Battlefield 5	50−55 +121%	24 −121%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +118%	10−12 −118%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +90.5%	21 −90.5%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +82.6%	23 −82.6%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +184%	19 −184%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +100%	16 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +383%	6 −383%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +109%	10−12 −109%
Hitman 3	24−27 +118%	10−12 −118%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +61.5%	12−14 −61.5%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +100%	10−11 −100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Battlefield 5	30−35 +313%	8−9 −313%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +127%	10−12 −127%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +190%	10−11 −190%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +173%	10−12 −173%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Hitman 3	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +25%	8−9 −25%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Battlefield 5	16−18 +300%	4−5 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +66.7%	9−10 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +200%	7−8 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%

This is how Pro 5300M and GeForce MX350 compete in popular games:

Pro 5300M is 112% faster in 1080p
Pro 5300M is 104% faster in 1440p
Pro 5300M is 112% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 5300M is 700% faster than the GeForce MX350.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Pro 5300M surpassed GeForce MX350 in all 68 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.47	7.25
Recency	13 November 2019	20 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	7 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	25 Watt