Radeon R7 350 vs RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) with Radeon R7 350, including specs and performance data.
R7 350 outperforms RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 665 | 611 |
| Place by popularity | 33 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 20.69 | 7.01 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Vega Raven Ridge | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 26 October 2017 (7 years ago) | 6 July 2016 (8 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 cores | 512 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 9,800 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 57.60 | 25.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.843 TFLOPS | 0.8192 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 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).
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1125 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.2.131 |
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 HD | 17
−23.5%
| 21−24
+23.5%
|
| 4K | 11
−9.1%
| 12−14
+9.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 22
−22.7%
|
27−30
+22.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 13
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 22
−22.7%
|
27−30
+22.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 22
−22.7%
|
27−30
+22.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Fortnite | 18
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 37
−21.6%
|
45−50
+21.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| World of Tanks | 42
−19%
|
50−55
+19%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35
−14.3%
|
40−45
+14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Valorant | 15
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−20.7%
|
35−40
+20.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 15
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and R7 350 compete in popular games:
- R7 350 is 24% faster in 1080p
- R7 350 is 9% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.21 | 5.23 |
| Recency | 26 October 2017 | 6 July 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 55 Watt |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 266.7% lower power consumption.
R7 350, on the other hand, has a 24.2% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon R7 350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is a notebook card while Radeon R7 350 is a desktop one.
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.
