GeForce MX230 vs Radeon R7 350

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 350 with GeForce MX230, including specs and performance data.

R7 350
2016
2 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
5.58
+17.5%

R7 350 outperforms MX230 by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking600640
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency7.0733.11
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameCape VerdeGP108
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date6 July 2016 (8 years ago)21 February 2019 (5 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 cores512256
Core clock speed800 MHz1519 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1582 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate25.6025.31
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPS0.81 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs3216

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1125 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s48.06 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
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 HD21−24
+5%
20
−5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 13
+0%
13
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14
+0%
14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 17
+0%
17
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 59
+0%
59
+0%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 18
+0%
18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 23
+0%
23
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16
+0%
16
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 13
+0%
13
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 13
+0%
13
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 53
+0%
53
+0%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 13
+0%
13
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6
+0%
6
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9
+0%
9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 7
+0%
7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12
+0%
12
+0%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
+0%
9
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Hitman 3 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how R7 350 and GeForce MX230 compete in popular games:

  • R7 350 is 5% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 68 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.58 4.75
Recency 6 July 2016 21 February 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 10 Watt

R7 350 has a 17.5% higher aggregate performance score.

GeForce MX230, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 450% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 350 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX230 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 350 is a desktop card while GeForce MX230 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 350
Radeon R7 350
NVIDIA GeForce MX230
GeForce MX230

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 477 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 1374 votes

Rate GeForce MX230 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.