Radeon R9 350 vs Iris Xe Graphics MAX
Radeon R9 350
Popular choices:
Iris Xe Graphics MAX
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. 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
Performance Per Dollar Iris Xe Graphics MAX
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Iris Xe Graphics MAX uses modern memory architecture. The Iris Xe Graphics MAX likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Radeon R9 350 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R9 350 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.3% higher G3D Mark score and 100+% more VRAM (2 GB vs 0 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Iris Xe Graphics MAX.
| Insight | Radeon R9 350 | Iris Xe Graphics MAX |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) | Generation 12.1 (2020−2021) (10nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100+%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Iris Xe Graphics MAX offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $40 versus $50 for the Radeon R9 350, it costs 20% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 23.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R9 350 | Iris Xe Graphics MAX |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+23.4%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50) | ✅More affordable ($40) |
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 R9 350 and Iris Xe Graphics MAX
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.
Iris Xe Graphics MAX
The Iris Xe Graphics MAX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in October 31 2020. It features the Generation 12.1 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1650 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 25W. Manufactured using 10 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,972 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 350 scores 1,998 and the Iris Xe Graphics MAX reaches 1,972 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 350 is built on GCN 2.0 while the Iris Xe Graphics MAX uses Generation 12.1, both on 28 nm vs 10 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (Radeon R9 350) vs 768 (Iris Xe Graphics MAX). Raw compute: 5.12 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 350) vs 2.534 TFLOPS (Iris Xe Graphics MAX). Boost clocks: 1000 MHz vs 1650 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon R9 350 | Iris Xe Graphics MAX |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,998+1% | 1,972 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Generation 12.1 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 10 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560+233% | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.12 TFLOPS+102% | 2.534 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1000 MHz | 1650 MHz+65% |
| ROPs | 64+167% | 24 |
| TMUs | 160+233% | 48 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 350 | Iris Xe Graphics MAX |
|---|---|---|
| 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 R9 350 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Iris Xe Graphics MAX has 0 MB. The Radeon R9 350 offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs System.
| Feature | Radeon R9 350 | Iris Xe Graphics MAX |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | Shared System RAM |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | Shared |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | System |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | System |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12_0 (Radeon R9 350) vs 12.1 (Iris Xe Graphics MAX). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Radeon R9 350 | Iris Xe Graphics MAX |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12_0 | 12.1 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 1.0 (Radeon R9 350) vs QuickSync (Iris Xe Graphics MAX). Decoder: UVD 3.1 vs QuickSync.
| Feature | Radeon R9 350 | Iris Xe Graphics MAX |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 1.0 | QuickSync |
| Decoder | UVD 3.1 | QuickSync |
| Codecs | — | H.264,HEVC,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 350 draws 300W versus the Iris Xe Graphics MAX's 25W — a 169.2% difference. The Iris Xe Graphics MAX is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (Radeon R9 350) vs 1W (Iris Xe Graphics MAX). Power connectors: None vs Integrated.
| Feature | Radeon R9 350 | Iris Xe Graphics MAX |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 300W | 25W-92% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W | 1W-100% |
| Power Connector | None | Integrated |
| Length | 168mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | — | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 6.7 | 78.9+1078% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 350 launched at $99 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the Iris Xe Graphics MAX launched at $55 and now averages $40. The Iris Xe Graphics MAX costs 20% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 40.0 (Radeon R9 350) vs 49.3 (Iris Xe Graphics MAX) — the Iris Xe Graphics MAX offers 23.2% better value. The Iris Xe Graphics MAX is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2015).
| Feature | Radeon R9 350 | Iris Xe Graphics MAX |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $99 | $55-44% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50 | $40-20% |
| Performance per Dollar | 40.0 | 49.3+23% |
| Codename | Grenada | DG1 |
| Release | June 18 2015 | October 31 2020 |
| Ranking | #296 | #685 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R9 350 and Iris Xe Graphics MAX
