Quadro K1100M vs Radeon R7 M350

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 M350 with Quadro K1100M, including specs and performance data.

R7 M350
2015
4 GB DDR3, 35 Watt
3.01
+9.1%

R7 M350 outperforms K1100M by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking775804
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.12
Power efficiency6.054.31
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameMesoGK107
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date5 May 2015 (9 years ago)23 July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$109.94

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores384384
Compute units6no data
Core clock speed1000 MHz706 MHz
Boost clock speed825 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,550 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate24.3622.59
Floating-point processing power0.7795 TFLOPS0.5422 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs2432

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 datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8MXM-A (3.0)

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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth16 GB/s44.8 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-
Optimus-+
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212
Shader Model6.55.1
OpenGL4.44.5
OpenCLNot Listed1.2
Vulkan-+
Mantle+-
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

R7 M350 3.01
+9.1%
K1100M 2.76

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

R7 M350 1186
+9.2%
K1100M 1086

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 HD18−20
+0%
18
+0%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data6.11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7
+0%
7
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4
+0%
4
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how R7 M350 and K1100M compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.01 2.76
Recency 5 May 2015 23 July 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 45 Watt

R7 M350 has a 9.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 28.6% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R7 M350 and Quadro K1100M.

Be aware that Radeon R7 M350 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K1100M is a mobile workstation one.

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 M350
Radeon R7 M350
NVIDIA Quadro K1100M
Quadro K1100M

Other comparisons

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.


3.3 62 votes

Rate Radeon R7 M350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 241 vote

Rate Quadro K1100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 M350 or Quadro K1100M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.