GeForce MX250 vs 7000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 7000M and GeForce MX250, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX250 outperforms 7000M by a whopping 18900% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1569 | 657 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 44.09 |
| Architecture | no data | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | C67 | GP108B |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 February 2006 (20 years ago) | 20 February 2019 (7 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1 MHz | 937 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 350 MHz | 1038 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 24.91 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.7972 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 144 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x4 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | shared Memory | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 48.06 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | shared Memory | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 (6.4) |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | -0−1 | 22 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Palworld | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1450%
|
31
+1450%
|
| Palworld | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−300%
|
28
+300%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−413%
|
118
+413%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−967%
|
95−100
+967%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−814%
|
64
+814%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1100%
|
24
+1100%
|
| Palworld | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−229%
|
23
+229%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−320%
|
21
+320%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−400%
|
115
+400%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−714%
|
57
+714%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−700%
|
16
+700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−171%
|
19
+171%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−140%
|
12
+140%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−187%
|
65−70
+187%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Palworld | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 0−1 | 35−40 |
1440p
Ultra
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−525%
|
24−27
+525%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
High
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Palworld | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 1450% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX250 performs better in 24 tests (39%)
- there's a draw in 37 tests (61%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.03 | 5.70 |
| Recency | 1 February 2006 | 20 February 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 14 nm |
GeForce MX250 has a 18900% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 543% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce MX250 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7000M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
