GeForce GT 620M vs Radeon R7 350
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 350 with GeForce GT 620M, including specs and performance data.
R7 350 outperforms GT 620M by a whopping 394% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 601 | 1076 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Power efficiency | 7.07 | 5.25 |
Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
GPU code name | Cape Verde | GF108 |
Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
Release date | 6 July 2016 (8 years ago) | 23 August 2012 (12 years ago) |
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 | 512 | 96 |
Core clock speed | 800 MHz | Up to 625 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 715 MHz |
Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 585 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 15 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 25.60 | 10.56 |
Floating-point processing power | 0.8192 TFLOPS | 0.2534 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 16 | 4 |
TMUs | 32 | 16 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 168 mm | no data |
Width | 1-slot | no data |
Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | DDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | Up to 128bit |
Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 900 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | Up to 28.8 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, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
HDMI | + | + |
HDCP | - | + |
Maximum VGA resolution | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
Optimus | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 API |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
CUDA | - | + |
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 | 190−200
+375%
| 40
−375%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how R7 350 and GT 620M compete in popular games:
- R7 350 is 375% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 46 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 5.58 | 1.13 |
Recency | 6 July 2016 | 23 August 2012 |
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 15 Watt |
R7 350 has a 393.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 620M, on the other hand, has 266.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 350 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 620M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 350 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 620M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.