Radeon HD 6250 vs FirePro W4300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro W4300 with Radeon HD 6250, including specs and performance data.

FirePro W4300
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
6.92
+3045%

W4300 outperforms HD 6250 by a whopping 3045% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5961443
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency10.660.89
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameBonaireCedar
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date1 December 2015 (10 years ago)31 January 2011 (15 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores76880
Core clock speed930 MHz650 MHz
Number of transistors2,080 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt19 Watt
Texture fill rate44.645.200
Floating-point processing power1.428 TFLOPS0.104 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs488
L1 Cache192 KB16 KB
L2 Cache256 KB128 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length171 mm168 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz500 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/s8 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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_0)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

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.

FirePro W4300 6.92
+3045%
HD 6250 0.22

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.

FirePro W4300 2894
+3012%
Samples: 66
HD 6250 93
Samples: 299

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 HD180−190
+2900%
6
−2900%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how FirePro W4300 and HD 6250 compete in popular games:

  • FirePro W4300 is 2900% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 26 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.92 0.22
Recency 1 December 2015 31 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 19 Watt

FirePro W4300 has a 3045% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

HD 6250, on the other hand, has 163% lower power consumption.

The FirePro W4300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6250 in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro W4300 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 6250 is a desktop one.

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.


3.7 41 votes

Rate FirePro W4300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 92 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro W4300 or Radeon HD 6250, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.