Radeon 530 vs GeForce GTS 250

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTS 250 with Radeon 530, including specs and performance data.

GTS 250
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 150 Watt
1.54

530 outperforms GTS 250 by an impressive 72% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking968810
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.06no data
Power efficiency0.713.66
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameG92BWeston
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date4 March 2009 (15 years ago)18 April 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores128384
Core clock speed738 MHz730 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1024 MHz
Number of transistors754 million1,550 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt50 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate44.9324.58
Floating-point processing power0.3871 TFLOPS0.7864 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs6424

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 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length229 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone
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 typeGDDR3DDR3/GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1100 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth70.4 GB/s14.4 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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Model4.06.3
OpenGL3.04.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA+-

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
Radeon 530 2.65
+72.1%

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
Radeon 530 1021
+71.9%

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 HD8−9
−87.5%
15
+87.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p24.88no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16
+0%
16
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8
+0%
8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 10
+0%
10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35
+0%
35
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 13
+0%
13
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 13
+0%
13
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18
+0%
18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7
+0%
7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 32
+0%
32
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 5
+0%
5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9
+0%
9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
+0%
6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how GTS 250 and Radeon 530 compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 530 is 88% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.54 2.65
Recency 4 March 2009 18 April 2017
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 50 Watt

Radeon 530 has a 72.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 530 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTS 250 is a desktop card while Radeon 530 is a notebook 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.


NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
GeForce GTS 250
AMD Radeon 530
Radeon 530

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.


3.5 1643 votes

Rate GeForce GTS 250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 714 votes

Rate Radeon 530 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.