Radeon HD 6950M vs GeForce GTS 250

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GTS 150 OEM GTS 240 OEM GTS 250 GTS 450 GTS 450 OEM GTS 450 Rev. 2 GTS 450 Rev. 3
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
6950M 6970M 6970M Crossfire 6970M Mac Edition 6970M Rebrand 6970M X2 6990M 6990M Crossfire 6990M Rebrand

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTS 250 with Radeon HD 6950M, including specs and performance data.

GTS 250
2009, $199
1 GB GDDR3, 150 Watt
1.35

HD 6950M outperforms GTS 250 by a whopping 145% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
GTS 250 GTS 250
HD 6950M HD 6950M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1050790
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.07no data
Power efficiency0.695.09
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameG92BBlackcomb
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date4 March 2009 (16 years ago)4 January 2011 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores128960
Core clock speed738 MHz580 MHz
Number of transistors754 million1,700 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt50 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate44.9327.84
Floating-point processing power0.3871 TFLOPS1.114 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs6448
L1 Cacheno data192 KB
L2 Cache64 KB512 KB

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
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length229 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data
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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1100 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth70.4 GB/s115.2 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model4.05.0
OpenGL3.04.4
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+-

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 1.35 3.31
Recency 4 March 2009 4 January 2011
Chip lithography 55 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 50 Watt

HD 6950M has a 145.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

The Radeon HD 6950M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTS 250 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon HD 6950M is a notebook one.

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 HD 6950M
Radeon HD 6950M
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

GTS 250 GeForce GTS 250
vs
8800 GTX GeForce 8800 GTX
HD 6950M Radeon HD 6950M
vs
GeForce MX110 GeForce MX110
GTS 250 GeForce GTS 250
vs
HD 6570 Radeon HD 6570
GTS 150 OEM GTS 150 OEM
vs
Data Center GPU Max 1350 Data Center GPU Max 1350
GTS 150 OEM GTS 150 OEM
vs
Iris Plus Graphics G7 64EU Mobile Iris Plus Graphics G7 64EU Mobile
GTS 150 OEM GTS 150 OEM
vs
HD 6970M X2 HD 6970M X2
GTS 250 GTS 250
vs
R6 M340DX R6 M340DX
GTS 250 GTS 250
vs
HD 6990M HD 6990M
GTS 250 GTS 250
vs
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100
GTS 250 GTS 250
vs
R9 255 OEM R9 255 OEM
GTS 250 GTS 250
vs
R9 M395X Mac Edition R9 M395X Mac Edition
GTS 250 GTS 250
vs
HD 7670M Rebrand HD 7670M Rebrand
GTS 250 GTS 250
vs
HD 6970M Mac Edition HD 6970M Mac Edition

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.5 1805 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Radeon HD 6950M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTS 250 or Radeon HD 6950M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.