Radeon RX 6700 XT vs R7 350
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 350 and Radeon RX 6700 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6700 XT outperforms R7 350 by a whopping 821% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 613 | 54 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 92 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 56.76 |
| Power efficiency | 7.03 | 15.48 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | Navi 22 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 July 2016 (8 years ago) | 3 March 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $479 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 2321 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2581 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 17,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 230 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.60 | 413.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8192 TFLOPS | 13.21 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 64 |
| TMUs | 32 | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
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 | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 384.0 GB/s |
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, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK 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 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
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
−863%
| 154
+863%
|
| 1440p | 9−10
−833%
| 84
+833%
|
| 4K | 5−6
−880%
| 49
+880%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.11 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.70 |
| 4K | no data | 9.78 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 159
+0%
|
159
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 119
+0%
|
119
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 123
+0%
|
123
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 342
+0%
|
342
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 131
+0%
|
131
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 150
+0%
|
150
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 281
+0%
|
281
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 145
+0%
|
145
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 161
+0%
|
161
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+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 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 139
+0%
|
139
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 240
+0%
|
240
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 123
+0%
|
123
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 93
+0%
|
93
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
This is how R7 350 and RX 6700 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6700 XT is 863% faster in 1080p
- RX 6700 XT is 833% faster in 1440p
- RX 6700 XT is 880% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.48 | 50.45 |
| Recency | 6 July 2016 | 3 March 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 230 Watt |
R7 350 has 318.2% lower power consumption.
RX 6700 XT, on the other hand, has a 820.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6700 XT 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.
