GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER vs Radeon R7 350
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 350 and GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 4080 SUPER outperforms R7 350 by a whopping 1489% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 609 | 5 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 55 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 38.36 |
| Power efficiency | 7.01 | 19.16 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | AD103 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 July 2016 (8 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 10240 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 45,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 320 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.60 | 816.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8192 TFLOPS | 52.22 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 112 |
| TMUs | 32 | 320 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
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 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 310 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 16-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 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 1438 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 736.3 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | + | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
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 | 16−18
−1531%
| 261
+1531%
|
| 1440p | 10−12
−1680%
| 178
+1680%
|
| 4K | 7−8
−1571%
| 117
+1571%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.83 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.61 |
| 4K | no data | 8.54 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 246
+0%
|
246
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240
+0%
|
240
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 614
+0%
|
614
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 198
+0%
|
198
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Valorant | 550−600
+0%
|
550−600
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 214
+0%
|
214
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 179
+0%
|
179
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 161
+0%
|
161
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 568
+0%
|
568
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 179
+0%
|
179
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 188
+0%
|
188
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 550−600
+0%
|
550−600
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190
+0%
|
190
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 527
+0%
|
527
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Valorant | 550−600
+0%
|
550−600
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 169
+0%
|
169
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 169
+0%
|
169
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 397
+0%
|
397
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 171
+0%
|
171
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 221
+0%
|
221
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 187
+0%
|
187
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 187
+0%
|
187
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 187
+0%
|
187
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 201
+0%
|
201
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
This is how R7 350 and RTX 4080 SUPER compete in popular games:
- RTX 4080 SUPER is 1531% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4080 SUPER is 1680% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4080 SUPER is 1571% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.39 | 85.66 |
| Recency | 6 July 2016 | 8 January 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 320 Watt |
R7 350 has 481.8% lower power consumption.
RTX 4080 SUPER, on the other hand, has a 1489.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
