GeForce GT 720M vs Radeon R7 350
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 350 with GeForce GT 720M, including specs and performance data.
R7 350 outperforms GT 720M by a whopping 369% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 570 | 1020 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.82 | 0.03 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | N14M-GE |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 July 2016 (7 years ago) | 1 April 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Current price | $142 | $499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R7 350 has 2633% better value for money than GT 720M.
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 | 512 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 938 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.60 | 12.13 |
| Floating-point performance | 819.2 gflops | 240.0 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon R7 350 and GeForce GT 720M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| 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 | 2 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | no data | DDR3 |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4500 MHz | 1800 - 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | no data | Up to 2560x1600 |
| LVDS signal support | no data | Up to 1920x1200 |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | Up to 2560x1600 |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP content protection | no data | + |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | no data | + |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | no data | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | no data | + |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics 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 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | no data | + |
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 | 70−75
+367%
| 15
−367%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 65−70
+364%
|
14−16
−364%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+355%
|
10−12
−355%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 65−70
+364%
|
14−16
−364%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+320%
|
5
−320%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+355%
|
10−12
−355%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 65−70
+364%
|
14−16
−364%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+355%
|
10−12
−355%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
This is how R7 350 and GT 720M compete in popular games:
- R7 350 is 367% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.58 | 1.19 |
| Recency | 6 July 2016 | 1 April 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 33 Watt |
The Radeon R7 350 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 720M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 350 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 720M 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.
