Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs GeForce GTS 250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 250 and Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms GTS 250 by a whopping 107% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1045 | 829 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.07 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.69 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN (2012−2015) |
| GPU code name | G92B | Kaveri Spectre |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 March 2009 (16 years ago) | 14 January 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 128 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 738 MHz | 720 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | no data |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 44.93 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3871 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 64 | no data |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | no data |
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 | no data |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no 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 type | GDDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1100 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 70.4 GB/s | no data |
| 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 Connectors | Two Dual Link DVI | no data |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.0 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 8−9
−125%
| 18
+125%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 24.88 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GTS 250 and R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:
- R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 125% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.35 | 2.79 |
| Recency | 4 March 2009 | 14 January 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 106.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
