GeForce MX250 vs Radeon R7 250E
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 250E with GeForce MX250, including specs and performance data.
MX250 outperforms R7 250E by a considerable 42% 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 | 759 | 664 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.11 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.65 | 44.18 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | GP108B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 20 December 2013 (12 years ago) | 20 February 2019 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | 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 | 512 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 937 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1038 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.60 | 24.91 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8192 TFLOPS | 0.7972 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 144 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 (6.4) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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 | 14−16 | 22
+57.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.79 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 27 | 27 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75 | 75 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14 | 14 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 20 | 20 |
| Battlefield 5 | 24 | 24 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 41 | 41 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11 | 11 |
| Far Cry 5 | 19 | 19 |
| Fortnite | 55 | 55 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 31 | 31 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 28 | 28 |
| Valorant | 118 | 118 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 7 | 7 |
| Battlefield 5 | 19 | 19 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21 | 21 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Dota 2 | 64 | 64 |
| Far Cry 5 | 17 | 17 |
| Far Cry 6 | 8 | 8 |
| Fortnite | 25 | 25 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24 | 24 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 28 | 28 |
| Metro Exodus | 7 | 7 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 23 | 23 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21 | 21 |
| Valorant | 115 | 115 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14 | 14 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Dota 2 | 57 | 57 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16 | 16 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16 | 16 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 19 | 19 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12 | 12 |
| Valorant | 65−70 | 65−70 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 22 | 22 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12 | 10−12 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Far Cry 6 | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Valorant | 55−60 | 55−60 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12 | 10−12 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 8−9 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12 | 10−12 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Far Cry 6 | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | 3−4 |
| Valorant | 24−27 | 24−27 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 20−22 | 20−22 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7 | 6−7 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7 | 6−7 |
This is how R7 250E and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX250 is 57% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 61 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.99 | 5.67 |
| Recency | 20 December 2013 | 20 February 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 10 Watt |
GeForce MX250 has a 42% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 50% more advanced lithography process, and 82% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX250 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250E in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 250E is a desktop graphics card while GeForce MX250 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.
