GeForce MX250 vs 920M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 920M and GeForce MX250, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce 920M
2015
4 GB DDR3, 33 Watt
1.87

MX250 outperforms 920M by a whopping 234% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking907573
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency4.0544.64
ArchitectureKepler 2.0 (2013−2015)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGK208BGP108B
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date13 March 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 cores384384
Core clock speed954 MHz937 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1038 MHz
Number of transistors915 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate30.5324.91
Floating-point processing power0.7327 TFLOPS0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs3224

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x4
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 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

Supported technologies

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

GPU Boost2.0no data
Optimus+-
GameWorks+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.7 (6.4)
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
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.

GeForce 920M 1.87
GeForce MX250 6.25
+234%

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.

GeForce 920M 720
GeForce MX250 2411
+235%

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.

GeForce 920M 1719
GeForce MX250 4633
+170%

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.

GeForce 920M 5587
GeForce MX250 16488
+195%

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.

GeForce 920M 1162
GeForce MX250 3660
+215%

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.

GeForce 920M 7242
GeForce MX250 21545
+198%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GeForce 920M 3697
GeForce MX250 9233
+150%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GeForce 920M 90619
GeForce MX250 235421
+160%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

GeForce 920M 3215
GeForce MX250 9349
+191%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GeForce 920M 329
GeForce MX250 1103
+235%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

GeForce 920M 2766
GeForce MX250 9734
+252%

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 HD15
−46.7%
22
+46.7%
4K9
−233%
30−35
+233%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−250%
14
+250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−171%
19
+171%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−2000%
21
+2000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−260%
18
+260%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−175%
11
+175%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−633%
22
+633%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−440%
27
+440%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−557%
46
+557%
Hitman 3 6−7
−167%
16
+167%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−594%
118
+594%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−600%
28
+600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−289%
35
+289%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−117%
76
+117%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 15
−60%
24
+60%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−1600%
17
+1600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−240%
17
+240%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−533%
19
+533%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−240%
17
+240%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−514%
43
+514%
Hitman 3 6−7
−167%
16
+167%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−576%
115
+576%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−300%
16
+300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−144%
22
+144%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
−17.6%
20−22
+17.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−103%
71
+103%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−140%
12
+140%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−333%
13
+333%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−129%
16
+129%
Hitman 3 6−7
−117%
12−14
+117%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+6.3%
16
−6.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−77.8%
16
+77.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4
−200%
12
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−45.7%
50−55
+45.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−350%
18
+350%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Hitman 3 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
−300%
40−45
+300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−120%
10−12
+120%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 3−4
Far Cry 5 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 2−3

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Metro Exodus 25
+0%
25
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 19
+0%
19
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how GeForce 920M and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX250 is 47% faster in 1080p
  • GeForce MX250 is 233% faster in 4K

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce 920M is 6% faster.
  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 2000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce 920M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • GeForce MX250 is ahead in 51 test (74%)
  • there's a draw in 17 tests (25%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.87 6.25
Recency 13 March 2015 20 February 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 33 Watt 10 Watt

GeForce 920M has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX250, on the other hand, has a 234.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 230% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX250 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 920M in performance tests.


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.


NVIDIA GeForce 920M
GeForce 920M
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.


3.1 1271 vote

Rate GeForce 920M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1536 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.