Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs R7 350

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD 7730 HD 7750 HD 7770 HD 8730 OEM HD 8740 OEM HD 8760 OEM R7 250E R7 250X R7 350 R7 350 640SP R7 450 OEM R9 255 OEM
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Pro Vega 16 Pro Vega 20 Pro Vega 48 Pro Vega 56 Pro Vega 64 Pro Vega 64X

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 350 with Radeon Pro Vega 16, including specs and performance data.

R7 350
2016
2 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
5.16

Pro 16 outperforms R7 350 by a whopping 123% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R7 350 R7 350
Pro Vega 16 Pro Vega 16

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking673456
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency7.2211.81
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameCape VerdeVega 12
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date6 July 2016 (9 years ago)14 November 2018 (7 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 cores5121024
Core clock speed800 MHz815 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1190 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate25.6076.16
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPS2.437 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs3264
L1 Cache128 KB256 KB
L2 Cache256 KB1024 KB

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 datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5HBM2
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit1024 Bit
Memory clock speed1125 MHz1200 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s307.2 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.3
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131

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 HD24−27
−146%
59
+146%
4K16−18
−138%
38
+138%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Fortnite 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Dota 2 75
+0%
75
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Fortnite 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Dota 2 72
+0%
72
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27
+0%
27
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 38
+0%
38
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

This is how R7 350 and Pro Vega 16 compete in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 16 is 146% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega 16 is 138% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 5.16 11.50
Recency 6 July 2016 14 November 2018
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 75 Watt

R7 350 has 36% lower power consumption.

Pro Vega 16, on the other hand, has a 123% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro Vega 16 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 350 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega 16 is a mobile workstation one.

Other comparisons

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

R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
HD 7770 Radeon HD 7770
Pro Vega 16 Radeon Pro Vega 16
vs
T550 Mobile T550 Mobile
R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
ATI HD 5870 Radeon HD 5870
P102-100 P102 100
vs
Data Center GPU Flex 140 Data Center GPU Flex 140
P102-100 P102 100
vs
CMP 100HX-210 CMP 100HX-210
P102-100 P102 100
vs
B100 B100
R7 350 R7 350
vs
ATI Mobility HD 2400 XT Mobility HD 2400 XT
R7 350 R7 350
vs
G550 PCIe
RX 580 OEM RX 580 OEM
vs
Pro V5300X Pro V5300X
RX 580 OEM RX 580 OEM
vs
Jetson AGX Xavier 16 GB Jetson AGX Xavier 16 GB
Quadro P3200 P3200
vs
RX 540X RX 540X
Quadro P3200 P3200
vs
T500 Max-Q T500 Max-Q
Quadro P3200 P3200
vs
Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile

Community ratings

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

3.8 589 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 12 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 16 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 350 or Radeon Pro Vega 16, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.