Radeon R7 M270DX vs R7 350

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 350 and Radeon R7 M270DX, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 350
2016
2 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
5.58
+124%

R7 350 outperforms R7 M270DX by a whopping 124% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking597834
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameCape VerdeTopaz
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date6 July 2016 (8 years ago)11 June 2014 (10 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 cores512384
Core clock speed800 MHz900 MHz
Boost clock speedno data940 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million1,550 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Wattno data
Texture fill rate25.6022.56
Floating-point processing power0.8192 gflops0.7219 gflops
ROPs168
TMUs3224

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16IGP
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotIGP
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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed4500 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth72 GB/sno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (12_0)
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.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.58 2.49
Recency 6 July 2016 11 June 2014

R7 350 has a 124.1% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.

The Radeon R7 350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M270DX in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 350
Radeon R7 350
AMD Radeon R7 M270DX
Radeon R7 M270DX

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


3.8 468 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 3 votes

Rate Radeon R7 M270DX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.