GeForce RTX 2080 vs Radeon HD 6250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6250 and GeForce RTX 2080, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 2080 outperforms HD 6250 by a whopping 19283% 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 | 1458 | 96 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 19.30 |
| Power efficiency | 0.94 | 16.05 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Cedar | TU104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 31 January 2011 (15 years ago) | 20 September 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $699 |
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 | 80 | 2944 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 1515 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1710 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 215 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.200 | 314.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.104 TFLOPS | 10.07 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 64 |
| TMUs | 8 | 184 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 368 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 46 |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | 2.9 MB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 4 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 8 GB/s | 448.0 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | + | + |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 6
−2300%
| 144
+2300%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 101 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 73 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.85 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.92 |
| 4K | no data | 9.58 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−13700%
|
130−140
+13700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 100−110 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−13700%
|
130−140
+13700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 100−110 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−5100%
|
156
+5100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2886%
|
209
+2886%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−874%
|
263
+874%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−13700%
|
130−140
+13700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−2217%
|
270−280
+2217%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 100−110 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−1556%
|
140−150
+1556%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−5000%
|
153
+5000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2586%
|
188
+2586%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−3520%
|
181
+3520%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−841%
|
254
+841%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 100−110 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−1556%
|
140−150
+1556%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−4300%
|
132
+4300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2314%
|
169
+2314%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2020%
|
106
+2020%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−726%
|
223
+726%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−5900%
|
120−130
+5900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−8650%
|
170−180
+8650%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 118 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−9100%
|
90−95
+9100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−664%
|
107
+664%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−4580%
|
234
+4580%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−6800%
|
69
+6800%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−6400%
|
65
+6400%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 163
+0%
|
163
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 199
+0%
|
199
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 155
+0%
|
155
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 131
+0%
|
131
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 145
+0%
|
145
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 156
+0%
|
156
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Valorant | 247
+0%
|
247
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 128
+0%
|
128
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
This is how HD 6250 and RTX 2080 compete in popular games:
- RTX 2080 is 2300% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RTX 2080 is 13700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 2080 performs better in 24 tests (41%)
- there's a draw in 34 tests (59%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.23 | 44.58 |
| Recency | 31 January 2011 | 20 September 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 215 Watt |
HD 6250 has 1032% lower power consumption.
RTX 2080, on the other hand, has a 19283% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 2080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6250 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.
