GeForce GTS 250M vs GT 720A
Aggregate performance score
GT 720A outperforms GTS 250M by a small 5% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 934 | 953 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | 0.09 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | GF117 | N10E-GE |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 July 2014 (9 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Current price | $639 | $230 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTS 250M has 800% better value for money than GT 720A.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 96 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 775 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.40 | 16.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 360.2 gflops | 240 gflops |
| Gigaflops | no data | 360 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 720A and GeForce GTS 250M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Width | MXM Module | no data |
| SLI options | no data | + |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | DDR3 | DDR3, GDDR3, GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2002 MHz | Up to 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16.02 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 Connectors | No outputs | HDMIVGALVDSSingle Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVI |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.1 | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
GT 720A outperforms GTS 250M by 5% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GT 720A outperforms GTS 250M by 5% in Passmark.
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 | 27−30
−3.7%
| 28
+3.7%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.50 | 1.43 |
| Recency | 1 July 2014 | 15 June 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 28 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 720A and GeForce GTS 250M.
Be aware that GeForce GT 720A is a desktop card while GeForce GTS 250M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
