Component comparison
GeForce RTX 5070 vs GeForce MX350
GeForce RTX 5070 vs GeForce MX350 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 5070
- + Release year (+5)
- + VRAM (GB) (+6 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+248 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+616 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+128 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+80 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-10 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+27,800M)
- + CUDA cores (+5504)
- + TMUs (+160)
- + ROPs (+64)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+29.67 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+177.51 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+435.32 GTexel/s)
- + PassMark (overall) (+16257)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+30578)
- + Normalized score (+38.8)
B
GeForce MX350
- + Die size (mm²) (+131 mm²)
- + Energy efficiency (+4.8)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 5070
|
Component B
GeForce MX350
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2025 (+5) | 2020 |
| VRAM (GB) | 8 GB (+6 GB) | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR7 | GDDR5 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 2000 MHz (+248 MHz) | 1752 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 672 GB/s (+616 GB/s) | 56 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 192 bit (+128 bit) | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 100 W (+80 W) | 20 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 4 nm (-10 nm) | 14 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 31,100M (+27,800M) | 3,300M |
| Die size (mm²) | 263 mm² | 132 mm² (+131 mm²) |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | 1354 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | 1468 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 6,144 (+5504) | 640 |
| TMUs | 192 (+160) | 32 |
| ROPs | 80 (+64) | 16 |
| RT cores | 48 | — |
| Tensor cores | 192 | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 30.87 TFLOPS (+29.67 TFLOPS) | 1.20 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 201.00 GPixel/s (+177.51 GPixel/s) | 23.49 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 482.30 GTexel/s (+435.32 GTexel/s) | 46.98 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 21.3 | 26.1 (+4.8) |
| PassMark (overall) | 19,075 (+16257) | 2,818 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | — | 1,336 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 34,949 (+30578) | 4,371 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | — | 13,112 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | — | 13,369 |
| Normalized score | 69.6 (+38.8) | 30.8 |
Only in component A
DLSS
ReBAR
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 5070 | GeForce MX350 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 180 FPS | 37 FPS | +386.5% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300 FPS | 66 FPS | +354.5% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 170 FPS | 16 FPS | +962.5% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 322 FPS | 27 FPS | +1092.6% (A) |
| Fortnite | 300 FPS | 82 FPS | +265.9% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270 FPS | 37 FPS | +629.7% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 329 FPS | 25 FPS | +1216% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 170 FPS | 12 FPS | +1316.7% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 210 FPS | 18 FPS | +1066.7% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 436 FPS | 27 FPS | +1514.8% (A) |
| Valorant | 400 FPS | 129 FPS | +210.1% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 5070 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).