Radeon 780M vs R7 350

Place in the ranking	609	306
Place by popularity	not in top-100	48
Power efficiency	7.01	83.89
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	768
Core clock speed	800 MHz	800 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2700 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	129.6
Floating-point processing power	0.8192 TFLOPS	8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	32	48
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	12

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 −250%	35 +250%
1440p	5−6 −240%	17 +240%
4K	4−5 −250%	14 +250%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	32 +0%	32 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	39 +0%	39 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	26 +0%	26 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +0%	15 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65 +0%	65 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Metro Exodus	44 +0%	44 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Valorant	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	25 +0%	25 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 +0%	12 +0%
Dota 2	29 +0%	29 +0%
Far Cry 5	32 +0%	32 +0%
Fortnite	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	54 +0%	54 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	45 +0%	45 +0%
Metro Exodus	32 +0%	32 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Valorant	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
World of Tanks	220−230 +0%	220−230 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 +0%	12 +0%
Dota 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	46 +0%	46 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
Valorant	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	18 +0%	18 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	19 +0%	19 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
World of Tanks	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	32 +0%	32 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 +0%	20 +0%
Valorant	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Dota 2	21 +0%	21 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	21 +0%	21 +0%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21 +0%	21 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Fortnite	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	17 +0%	17 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Valorant	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

This is how R7 350 and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

Radeon 780M is 250% faster in 1080p
Radeon 780M is 240% faster in 1440p
Radeon 780M is 250% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.60	18.28
Recency	6 July 2016	6 December 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	15 Watt

Radeon 780M has a 226.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 266.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 780M 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 780M is a notebook one.

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