ATI Radeon 8500 vs GeForce GTS 250

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTS 250 and Radeon 8500, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTS 250
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 150 Watt
1.54
+7600%

GTS 250 outperforms ATI 8500 by a whopping 7600% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9701492
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.09no data
Power efficiency0.720.06
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Rage 7 (2001−2006)
GPU code nameG92BR200
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date4 March 2009 (15 years ago)14 August 2001 (23 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 cores128no data
Core clock speed738 MHz275 MHz
Number of transistors754 million60 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt23 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate44.932.200
Floating-point processing power0.3871 TFLOPSno data
ROPs164
TMUs648

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 x16AGP 4x
Length229 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot1-slot
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 typeGDDR3DDR
Maximum RAM amount1 GB64 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1100 MHz275 MHz
Memory bandwidth70.4 GB/s8.8 GB/s

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 DVI1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
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)8.1
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.01.4
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
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
+7600%
ATI 8500 0.02

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
+9800%
ATI 8500 6

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.54 0.02
Recency 4 March 2009 14 August 2001
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 64 MB
Chip lithography 55 nm 150 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 23 Watt

GTS 250 has a 7600% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 172.7% more advanced lithography process.

ATI 8500, on the other hand, has 552.2% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTS 250 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 8500 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 GTS 250
GeForce GTS 250
ATI Radeon 8500
Radeon 8500

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
2.7 94 votes

Rate Radeon 8500 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.