Radeon 760M vs R7 350

Place in the ranking	606	356
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	7.01	68.01
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	Cape Verde	Hawx Point
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	6 July 2016 (8 years ago)	6 December 2023 (1 year 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	512
Core clock speed	800 MHz	800 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2599 MHz
Number of transistors	1,500 million	25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	25.60	83.17
Floating-point processing power	0.8192 TFLOPS	5.323 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	32	32
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	8

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 x8
Length	168 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1125 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	no data
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	Portable Device Dependent
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	2.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3

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	10−12 −210%	31 +210%
1440p	7−8 −171%	19 +171%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	25 +0%	25 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30 +0%	30 +0%
Elden Ring	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	19 +0%	19 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 +0%	12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	51 +0%	51 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	18 +0%	18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +0%	9 +0%
Dota 2	23 +0%	23 +0%
Elden Ring	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Far Cry 5	29 +0%	29 +0%
Fortnite	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	44 +0%	44 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	34 +0%	34 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Valorant	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
World of Tanks	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Dota 2	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	37 +0%	37 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Valorant	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Elden Ring	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
World of Tanks	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Valorant	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Elden Ring	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Fortnite	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

This is how R7 350 and Radeon 760M compete in popular games:

Radeon 760M is 210% faster in 1080p
Radeon 760M is 171% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.60	14.82
Recency	6 July 2016	6 December 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	15 Watt

Radeon 760M has a 164.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 266.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 760M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 350 is a desktop card while Radeon 760M is a notebook one.

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