Radeon Vega 7 vs GeForce GTS 250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 250 with Radeon Vega 7, including specs and performance data.
Vega 7 outperforms GTS 250 by a whopping 399% 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 | 1074 | 620 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 23 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.07 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.70 | 11.58 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G92B | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 March 2009 (17 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 128 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 738 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 44.93 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3871 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 28 |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | no data |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | IGP |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
| 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 type | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1100 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 70.4 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | Two Dual Link DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 4−5
−81.8%
| 22 |
| 1440p | 5−6
−82.1%
| 28 |
| 4K | 3−4
−83.3%
| 18 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 49.75 | no data |
| 1440p | 39.80 | no data |
| 4K | 66.33 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18 | 18 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Battlefield 5 | 28 | 28 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14 | 14 |
| Far Cry 5 | 20 | 20 |
| Fortnite | 63 | 63 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37 | 37 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27 | 24−27 |
| Valorant | 70−75 | 70−75 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Battlefield 5 | 23 | 23 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 58 | 58 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10 | 10 |
| Far Cry 5 | 18 | 18 |
| Far Cry 6 | 17 | 17 |
| Fortnite | 27 | 27 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35 | 35 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17 | 17 |
| Metro Exodus | 13 | 13 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 23 | 23 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18 | 18 |
| Valorant | 73 | 73 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21 | 21 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9 | 9 |
| Far Cry 5 | 18 | 18 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27 | 27 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27 | 24−27 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13 | 13 |
| Valorant | 25 | 25 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14 | 14 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Far Cry 6 | 9−10 | 9−10 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8 | 7−8 |
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 6−7 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Valorant | 48 | 48 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10 | 9−10 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16 | 14−16 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 6 | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Valorant | 25 | 25 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7 | 6−7 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 6−7 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11 | 10−11 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8 | 7−8 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7 | 6−7 |
This is how GTS 250 and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Vega 7 is 450% faster in 1080p
- Vega 7 is 460% faster in 1440p
- Vega 7 is 500% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.34 | 6.69 |
| Recency | 4 March 2009 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 45 Watt |
Vega 7 has a 399% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 87% more advanced lithography process, and 70% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTS 250 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Vega 7 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
