Radeon RX 7900 XT vs GeForce GTS 250

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTS 250 and Radeon RX 7900 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTS 250
2009, $199
1 GB GDDR3, 150 Watt
1.34
RX 7900 XT
2022, $899
20 GB GDDR6, 300 Watt
69.60
+5094%

7900 XT outperforms GTS 250 by a whopping 5094% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking107320
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0742.62
Power efficiency0.7018.07
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)
GPU code nameG92BNavi 31
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date4 March 2009 (17 years ago)3 November 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $899

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RX 7900 XT has 60786% better value for money than GTS 250.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

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 cores1285376
Core clock speed738 MHz1387 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2394 MHz
Number of transistors754 million57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt300 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate44.93804.4
Floating-point processing power0.3871 TFLOPS51.48 TFLOPS
ROPs16192
TMUs64336
Ray Tracing Coresno data84
L0 Cacheno data2.6 MB
L1 Cacheno data3 MB
L2 Cache64 KB6 MB
L3 Cacheno data80 MB

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length229 mm276 mm
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin2x 8-pin
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB20 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit320 Bit
Memory clock speed1100 MHz2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth70.4 GB/s800.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVI1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.8
OpenGL3.04.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-

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.

GTS 250 1.34
RX 7900 XT 69.60
+5094%

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.

GTS 250 562
Samples: 3283
RX 7900 XT 29117
+5081%
Samples: 7266

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 HD3−4
−98.5%
199
1440p2−3
−98.5%
135
4K1−285
+8400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p66.334.52
+93.2%
1440p99.506.66
+93.3%
4K199.0010.58
+94.7%
  • RX 7900 XT has 93% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX 7900 XT has 93% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX 7900 XT has 95% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 328 328
Counter-Strike 2 300−350 300−350
Cyberpunk 2077 237 237
Resident Evil 4 Remake 307 307

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 262 262
Battlefield 5 180−190 180−190
Counter-Strike 2 288 288
Cyberpunk 2077 212 212
Far Cry 5 196 196
Fortnite 300−350 300−350
Forza Horizon 4 280−290 280−290
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 400−450 400−450

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 170 170
Battlefield 5 180−190 180−190
Counter-Strike 2 268 268
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 190 190
Dota 2 199 199
Far Cry 5 187 187
Fortnite 300−350 300−350
Forza Horizon 4 280−290 280−290
Grand Theft Auto V 173 173
Metro Exodus 146 146
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 483 483
Valorant 400−450 400−450

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 180−190 180−190
Cyberpunk 2077 179 179
Dota 2 184 184
Far Cry 5 173 173
Forza Horizon 4 280−290 280−290
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 255 255
Valorant 400−450 400−450

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 300−350 300−350

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 206 206
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 500−550 500−550
Grand Theft Auto V 159 159
Metro Exodus 135 135
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 450−500 450−500

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 180−190 180−190
Cyberpunk 2077 122 122
Far Cry 5 173 173
Forza Horizon 4 240−250 240−250
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 179 179

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 150−160

4K
High

Atomic Heart 65−70 65−70
Counter-Strike 2 50 50
Grand Theft Auto V 175 175
Metro Exodus 87 87
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 156 156
Valorant 300−350 300−350

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140 130−140
Counter-Strike 2 100−105 100−105
Cyberpunk 2077 60 60
Dota 2 153 153
Far Cry 5 132 132
Forza Horizon 4 200−210 200−210
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 95−100

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80 75−80

This is how GTS 250 and RX 7900 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 7900 XT is 6533% faster in 1080p
  • RX 7900 XT is 6650% faster in 1440p
  • RX 7900 XT is 8400% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.34 69.60
Recency 4 March 2009 3 November 2022
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 20 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 300 Watt

GTS 250 has 50% lower power consumption.

RX 7900 XT, on the other hand, has a 5094% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 1900% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 91% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 7900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 1844 votes

Rate GeForce GTS 250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 2658 votes

Rate Radeon RX 7900 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTS 250 or Radeon RX 7900 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.