Component comparison
GeForce RTX 5060 vs GeForce MX350
GeForce RTX 5060 vs GeForce MX350 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 5060
- + Release year (+5)
- + VRAM (GB) (+6 GB)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+392 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+64 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+25 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-9 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+18,600M)
- + CUDA cores (+3200)
- + TMUs (+88)
- + ROPs (+32)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+17.98 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+96.41 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+252.62 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+43.0)
- + PassMark (overall) (+13931)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+26995)
- + Normalized score (+19.5)
B
GeForce MX350
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+252 MHz)
- + Die size (mm²) (+49 mm²)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 5060
|
Component B
GeForce MX350
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2025 (+5) | 2020 |
| VRAM (GB) | 8 GB (+6 GB) | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR7 | GDDR5 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1500 MHz | 1752 MHz (+252 MHz) |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 448 GB/s (+392 GB/s) | 56 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 128 bit (+64 bit) | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 45 W (+25 W) | 20 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 5 nm (-9 nm) | 14 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 21,900M (+18,600M) | 3,300M |
| Die size (mm²) | 181 mm² | 132 mm² (+49 mm²) |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | 1354 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | 1468 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 3,840 (+3200) | 640 |
| TMUs | 120 (+88) | 32 |
| ROPs | 48 (+32) | 16 |
| RT cores | 30 | — |
| Tensor cores | 120 | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 19.18 TFLOPS (+17.98 TFLOPS) | 1.20 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 119.90 GPixel/s (+96.41 GPixel/s) | 23.49 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 299.60 GTexel/s (+252.62 GTexel/s) | 46.98 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 69.2 (+43.0) | 26.1 |
| PassMark (overall) | 16,749 (+13931) | 2,818 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | — | 1,336 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 31,366 (+26995) | 4,371 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | — | 13,112 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | — | 13,369 |
| Normalized score | 50.3 (+19.5) | 30.8 |
Only in component A
DLSS
ReBAR
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 5060 | GeForce MX350 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 130 FPS | 37 FPS | +251.4% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220 FPS | 66 FPS | +233.3% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95 FPS | 16 FPS | +493.8% (A) |
| Escape from Tarkov | 120 FPS | 32 FPS | +275% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 130 FPS | 27 FPS | +381.5% (A) |
| Fortnite | 170 FPS | 82 FPS | +107.3% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150 FPS | 37 FPS | +305.4% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 255 FPS | 25 FPS | +920% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 95 FPS | 12 FPS | +691.7% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 110 FPS | 18 FPS | +511.1% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 140 FPS | 27 FPS | +418.5% (A) |
| Valorant | 230 FPS | 129 FPS | +78.3% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 5060 wins 17 of the comparable criteria.
The choice depends on your use case.
🤔 How to choose
Universal advice for any use case.
- Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) ↔ price (median 385.1).
- Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) ↔ overall performance (median 49.8).
- Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) ↔ battery life (median 2.8).