GeForce RTX 2060 Super vs Radeon R7 350

Place in performance ranking	570	77
Place by popularity	not in top-100	19
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.87	29.49
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	Cape Verde	Turing TU106
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	6 July 2016 (7 years ago)	2 July 2019 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$399
Current price	$142	$374 (0.9x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 2060 Super has 3290% better value for money than R7 350.

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	2176
Core clock speed	800 MHz	1470 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1650 MHz
Number of transistors	1,500 million	10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	175 Watt
Texture fill rate	25.60	224.4
Floating-point performance	819.2 gflops	no data

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	168 mm	229 mm
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 8-pin

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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	4500 MHz	14000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	448.0 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI	+	+
G-SYNC support	no data	+

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	no data	7.5

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	14−16 −750%	119 +750%
1440p	9−10 −678%	70 +678%
4K	6−7 −700%	48 +700%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.57	42.84
Recency	6 July 2016	2 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	175 Watt