GeForce MX250 vs FirePro W7170M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro W7170M with GeForce MX250, including specs and performance data.

W7170M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
8.21
+31.6%

W7170M outperforms MX250 by a substantial 32% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking511579
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.6342.82
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameAmethystGP108B
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date2 October 2015 (9 years ago)20 February 2019 (5 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 cores2048384
Core clock speed723 MHz937 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1038 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate92.5424.91
Floating-point processing power2.961 TFLOPS0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs12824

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 sizelargelarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x4
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/s48.06 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.7 (6.4)
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA-6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

W7170M 8.21
+31.6%
GeForce MX250 6.24

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.

W7170M 3161
+31.4%
GeForce MX250 2405

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.

W7170M 9708
+110%
GeForce MX250 4633

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.

W7170M 26345
+59.8%
GeForce MX250 16488

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.

W7170M 6935
+89.5%
GeForce MX250 3660

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.

W7170M 43124
+100%
GeForce MX250 21545

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

W7170M 77
+76.4%
GeForce MX250 44

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 HD55
+150%
22
−150%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−7.7%
14
+7.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+5.3%
19
−5.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
−18.2%
13
+18.2%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+19%
21
−19%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
−5.9%
18
+5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+18.2%
11
−18.2%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−15.8%
22
+15.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
−17.4%
27
+17.4%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+17.4%
46
−17.4%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
−151%
118
+151%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
25
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−21.7%
28
+21.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
−29.6%
35
+29.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
−33.3%
76
+33.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
−20%
24
+20%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+47.1%
17
−47.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+0%
17
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
19
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+35.3%
17
−35.3%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+25.6%
43
−25.6%
Hitman 3 16−18
+0%
16
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
−145%
115
+145%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+31.6%
19
−31.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+43.8%
16
−43.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+22.7%
22
−22.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 89
+345%
20−22
−345%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
−24.6%
71
+24.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+186%
7
−186%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+41.7%
12
−41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+46.2%
13
−46.2%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+238%
16
−238%
Hitman 3 16−18
+23.1%
12−14
−23.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+194%
16
−194%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+68.8%
16
−68.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23
+91.7%
12
−91.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+11.8%
50−55
−11.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+27.8%
18
−27.8%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+33.3%
12−14
−33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+60%
20−22
−60%
Hitman 3 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+30%
40−45
−30%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Hitman 3 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+87.5%
16−18
−87.5%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%

This is how W7170M and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

  • W7170M is 150% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the W7170M is 345% faster.
  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 151% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • W7170M is ahead in 54 tests (76%)
  • GeForce MX250 is ahead in 12 tests (17%)
  • there's a draw in 5 tests (7%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.21 6.24
Recency 2 October 2015 20 February 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 10 Watt

W7170M has a 31.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX250, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.

The FirePro W7170M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX250 in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro W7170M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce MX250 is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD FirePro W7170M
FirePro W7170M
NVIDIA GeForce MX250
GeForce MX250

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.2 13 votes

Rate FirePro W7170M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1558 votes

Rate GeForce MX250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.