Radeon R5 M330 vs GeForce GTS 250

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTS 250 with Radeon R5 M330, including specs and performance data.

GTS 250
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 150 Watt
1.54

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking970969
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.09no data
Power efficiency0.725.96
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameG92BExo
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date4 March 2009 (15 years ago)5 May 2015 (9 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 cores128320
Compute unitsno data5
Core clock speed738 MHz955 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1030 MHz
Number of transistors754 million690 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt18 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate44.9320.60
Floating-point processing power0.3871 TFLOPS0.6592 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs6420

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).

Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0
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
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1100 MHz1000 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

Supported technologies

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

HD3D-+
PowerTune-+
DualGraphics-+
ZeroCore-+
Switchable graphics-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)DirectX® 12
Shader Model4.05.0
OpenGL3.04.4
OpenCL1.1Not Listed
VulkanN/A+
Mantle-+
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
R5 M330 1.54

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
R5 M330 595
+0.2%

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 HD9−10
+0%
9
+0%

Cost per frame, $

1080p22.11no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+0%
13
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how GTS 250 and R5 M330 compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 49 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Recency 4 March 2009 5 May 2015
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 18 Watt

R5 M330 has an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 733.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTS 250 and Radeon R5 M330.

Be aware that GeForce GTS 250 is a desktop card while Radeon R5 M330 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 R5 M330
Radeon R5 M330

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
2.9 1023 votes

Rate Radeon R5 M330 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.