Radeon R7 350 vs RX 480
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 480 and Radeon R7 350, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 480 outperforms R7 350 by a whopping 299% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 257 | 613 |
| Place by popularity | 90 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.76 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.22 | 6.99 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Ellesmere | Cape Verde |
| GCN generation | 4th Gen | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 29 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 6 July 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | no data |
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 | 2304 | 512 |
| Compute units | 36 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1120 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1266 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 182.3 | 25.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.834 TFLOPS | 0.8192 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 144 | 32 |
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).
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 8000 MHz | 1125 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
| 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 HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | 2.0 | + |
| DisplayPort support | 1.4HDR | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | n/a | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| Enduro | n/a | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | n/a | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | n/a | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | n/a | - |
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 | 77
+328%
| 18−20
−328%
|
| 1440p | 53
+342%
| 12−14
−342%
|
| 4K | 36
+300%
| 9−10
−300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.97 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.32 | no data |
| 4K | 6.36 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 55−60
+307%
|
14−16
−307%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+350%
|
10−11
−350%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 55−60
+307%
|
14−16
−307%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+305%
|
21−24
−305%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+350%
|
10−11
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+344%
|
16−18
−344%
|
| Fortnite | 207
+314%
|
50−55
−314%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100
+317%
|
24−27
−317%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+321%
|
14−16
−321%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+344%
|
18−20
−344%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+331%
|
35−40
−331%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 55−60
+307%
|
14−16
−307%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+305%
|
21−24
−305%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 285
+307%
|
70−75
−307%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+350%
|
10−11
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+322%
|
27−30
−322%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+344%
|
16−18
−344%
|
| Fortnite | 79
+339%
|
18−20
−339%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 93
+343%
|
21−24
−343%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+321%
|
14−16
−321%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 78
+333%
|
18−20
−333%
|
| Metro Exodus | 41
+310%
|
10−11
−310%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+344%
|
18−20
−344%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 78
+333%
|
18−20
−333%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+331%
|
35−40
−331%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+305%
|
21−24
−305%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 29
+314%
|
7−8
−314%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+350%
|
10−11
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+322%
|
27−30
−322%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+344%
|
16−18
−344%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+328%
|
18−20
−328%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+321%
|
14−16
−321%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45
+350%
|
10−11
−350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+340%
|
10−11
−340%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+331%
|
35−40
−331%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65
+306%
|
16−18
−306%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+329%
|
35−40
−329%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+350%
|
6−7
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+335%
|
40−45
−335%
|
| Valorant | 241
+302%
|
60−65
−302%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+321%
|
14−16
−321%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+300%
|
12−14
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+342%
|
12−14
−342%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+322%
|
9−10
−322%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+325%
|
8−9
−325%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 39
+333%
|
9−10
−333%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 36
+300%
|
9−10
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 15
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27
+350%
|
6−7
−350%
|
| Valorant | 120
+300%
|
30−33
−300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+300%
|
8−9
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 88
+319%
|
21−24
−319%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
This is how RX 480 and R7 350 compete in popular games:
- RX 480 is 328% faster in 1080p
- RX 480 is 342% faster in 1440p
- RX 480 is 300% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.22 | 5.57 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 55 Watt |
RX 480 has a 298.9% higher aggregate performance score, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
R7 350, on the other hand, has 172.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 480 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
