CPU
GPU
RADEON HD 6350
Popular choices:
Quadro NVS 420
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The RADEON HD 6350 is positioned at rank #240 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar RADEON HD 6350
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Quadro NVS 420 is significantly newer (2018 vs 2011). The Quadro NVS 420 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The RADEON HD 6350 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The RADEON HD 6350 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.9% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro NVS 420 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | RADEON HD 6350 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.9%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+700%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro NVS 420 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $20 versus $30 for the RADEON HD 6350, it costs 33% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 45.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | RADEON HD 6350 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+45.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($30) | ✅More affordable ($20) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of RADEON HD 6350 and Quadro NVS 420
RADEON HD 6350
The RADEON HD 6350 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 1 2011. It features the TeraScale 3 architecture. The core clock speed is 750 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 186W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 141 points. Launch price was $180.
Quadro NVS 420
The Quadro NVS 420 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 21 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1227 MHz to 1647 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 137 points.
Graphics Performance
The RADEON HD 6350 scores 141 and the Quadro NVS 420 reaches 137 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The RADEON HD 6350 is built on TeraScale 3 while the Quadro NVS 420 uses Pascal, both on 40 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (RADEON HD 6350) vs 2,304 (Quadro NVS 420). Raw compute: 1.92 TFLOPS (RADEON HD 6350) vs 7.589 TFLOPS (Quadro NVS 420).
| Feature | RADEON HD 6350 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 141+3% | 137 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 1280 | 2304+80% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.92 TFLOPS | 7.589 TFLOPS+295% |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 80 | 144+80% |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 864 KB+170% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RADEON HD 6350 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The RADEON HD 6350 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the Quadro NVS 420 has 4 GB. The Quadro NVS 420 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (RADEON HD 6350) vs 2 MB (Quadro NVS 420) — the Quadro NVS 420 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | RADEON HD 6350 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 4 GB+700% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.2 (11_0) (RADEON HD 6350) vs 10_0 (Quadro NVS 420). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 4.
| Feature | RADEON HD 6350 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0)+12% | 10_0 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 4+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (RADEON HD 6350) vs PureVideo HD (Quadro NVS 420). Decoder: UVD 2.2 vs PureVideo HD.
| Feature | RADEON HD 6350 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | PureVideo HD |
| Decoder | UVD 2.2 | PureVideo HD |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 | — |
Power & Dimensions
The RADEON HD 6350 draws 186W versus the Quadro NVS 420's 100W — a 60.1% difference. The Quadro NVS 420 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (RADEON HD 6350) vs 350W (Quadro NVS 420). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 168mm vs 160mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots.
| Feature | RADEON HD 6350 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 186W | 100W-46% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 168mm | 160mm |
| Height | 69mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 70 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.8 | 1.4+75% |
Value Analysis
The RADEON HD 6350 launched at $30 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the Quadro NVS 420 launched at $0 and now averages $20. The Quadro NVS 420 costs 33.3% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 4.7 (RADEON HD 6350) vs 6.8 (Quadro NVS 420) — the Quadro NVS 420 offers 44.7% better value. The Quadro NVS 420 is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2011).
| Feature | RADEON HD 6350 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $30 | $0-100% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30 | $20-33% |
| Performance per Dollar | 4.7 | 6.8+45% |
| Codename | Cayman | GP104 |
| Release | December 1 2011 | February 21 2018 |
| Ranking | #598 | #266 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on RADEON HD 6350 and Quadro NVS 420
