GeForce RTX 2070 vs GTS 250

Place in the ranking	968	94
Place by popularity	not in top-100	99
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.06	33.60
Power efficiency	0.71	16.53
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	G92B	TU106
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	4 March 2009 (15 years ago)	17 October 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	$499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 2070 has 55900% better value for money than GTS 250.

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 cores	128	2304
Core clock speed	738 MHz	1410 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1620 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	175 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	44.93	233.3
Floating-point processing power	0.3871 TFLOPS	7.465 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	64
TMUs	64	144
Tensor Cores	no data	288
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	36

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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	229 mm	229 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	1x 8-pin
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1100 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	70.4 GB/s	448.0 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 Connectors	Two Dual Link DVI	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
G-SYNC support	-	+
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.5
OpenGL	3.0	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	7.5

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.

GTS 250 1.54

RTX 2070 41.86
+2618%

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.

GTS 250 594

RTX 2070 16147
+2618%

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	4−5 −3100%	128 +3100%
1440p	3−4 −2767%	86 +2767%
4K	2−3 −2900%	60 +2900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	49.75	3.90
1440p	66.33	5.80
4K	99.50	8.32

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

70−75

+0%

70−75

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	101 +0%	101 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	87 +0%	87 +0%
Battlefield 5	164 +0%	164 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	116 +0%	116 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Far Cry 5	124 +0%	124 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	148 +0%	148 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	246 +0%	246 +0%
Hitman 3	116 +0%	116 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	258 +0%	258 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	110 +0%	110 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	207 +0%	207 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	254 +0%	254 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	135 +0%	135 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	73 +0%	73 +0%
Battlefield 5	156 +0%	156 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	106 +0%	106 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Far Cry 5	101 +0%	101 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	108 +0%	108 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	227 +0%	227 +0%
Hitman 3	113 +0%	113 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	248 +0%	248 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	108 +0%	108 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	244 +0%	244 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	64 +0%	64 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	65 +0%	65 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	78 +0%	78 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Far Cry 5	79 +0%	79 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110 +0%	110 +0%
Hitman 3	94 +0%	94 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	139 +0%	139 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	87 +0%	87 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	64 +0%	64 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	106 +0%	106 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	75 +0%	75 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	52 +0%	52 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	50 +0%	50 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	58 +0%	58 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	60 +0%	60 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	215 +0%	215 +0%
Hitman 3	64 +0%	64 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	104 +0%	104 +0%
Metro Exodus	82 +0%	82 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	240 +0%	240 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	53 +0%	53 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	44 +0%	44 +0%
Hitman 3	41 +0%	41 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	116 +0%	116 +0%
Metro Exodus	76 +0%	76 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	63 +0%	63 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	36 +0%	36 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	31 +0%	31 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	33 +0%	33 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	31 +0%	31 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	63 +0%	63 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27 +0%	27 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

This is how GTS 250 and RTX 2070 compete in popular games:

RTX 2070 is 3100% faster in 1080p
RTX 2070 is 2767% faster in 1440p
RTX 2070 is 2900% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.54	41.86
Recency	4 March 2009	17 October 2018
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	175 Watt

GTS 250 has 16.7% lower power consumption.

RTX 2070, on the other hand, has a 2618.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 358.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 2070 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 in performance tests.

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