Radeon R9 350 vs GeForce GTX 765M

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. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 765M

#99

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

270%

#101

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

244%

#102

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

244%

#106

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

222%

#107

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

220%

#109

GeForce GTX 765M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#110

GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

100%

#114

Radeon RX 470 (móvel)

MSRP: $179|Avg: $40

97%

#116

GeForce GTX 880M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

95%

#117

GeForce MX570

MSRP: $150|Avg: $120

95%

#118

Radeon RX 6500

MSRP: $199|Avg: $150

95%

#119

GeForce 825M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $30

94%

#121

Radeon HD 6970M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $48

94%

#123

Radeon HD 6970M Crossfire

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

93%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 765M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R9 350.

Insight	Radeon R9 350	GeForce GTX 765M
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.8%)	✅Leading raw performance (+0.8%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	—

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 765M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

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.

Radeon R9 350 Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 765M Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R9 350 and GeForce GTX 765M

Radeon R9 350

The Radeon R9 350 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 18 2015. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 300W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,998 points. Launch price was $329.

GeForce GTX 765M

The GeForce GTX 765M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 30 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 850 MHz to 863 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,014 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Radeon R9 350 scores 1,998 and the GeForce GTX 765M reaches 2,014 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 350 is built on GCN 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 765M uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 2,560 (Radeon R9 350) vs 768 (GeForce GTX 765M). Raw compute: 5.12 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 350) vs 1.326 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 765M). Boost clocks: 1000 MHz vs 863 MHz.

Feature	Radeon R9 350	GeForce GTX 765M
G3D Mark Score	1,998	2,014
Architecture	GCN 2.0	Kepler
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	2560+233%	768
Compute (TFLOPS)	5.12 TFLOPS+286%	1.326 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1000 MHz+16%	863 MHz
ROPs	64+300%	16
TMUs	160+150%	64
L1 Cache	640 KB+900%	64 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon R9 350	GeForce GTX 765M
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	FSR 3 (Compatible)
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	AMD Anti-Lag	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Radeon R9 350) vs 0.25 MB (GeForce GTX 765M) — the Radeon R9 350 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Radeon R9 350	GeForce GTX 765M
VRAM Capacity	2 GB	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	Unknown	80 GB/s
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12_0 (Radeon R9 350) vs 12 (11_0) (GeForce GTX 765M). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.

Feature	Radeon R9 350	GeForce GTX 765M
DirectX	12_0	12 (11_0)
Max Displays	4	4

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VCE 1.0 (Radeon R9 350) vs 1st Gen NVENC (GeForce GTX 765M). Decoder: UVD 3.1 vs 1st Gen NVDEC (VP5).

Feature	Radeon R9 350	GeForce GTX 765M
Encoder	VCE 1.0	1st Gen NVENC
Decoder	UVD 3.1	1st Gen NVDEC (VP5)
Codecs	—	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon R9 350 draws 300W versus the GeForce GTX 765M's 75W — a 120% difference. The GeForce GTX 765M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (Radeon R9 350) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 765M). Power connectors: None vs 1x 6-pin.