RTX A5500 vs GeForce GTS 250M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 250M with RTX A5500, including specs and performance data.
RTX A5500 outperforms GTS 250M by a whopping 3729% 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 | 1043 | 66 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.59 | 16.74 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | GA102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 June 2009 (16 years ago) | 22 March 2022 (3 years ago) |
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 | 96 | 10240 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1080 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 230 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 16.00 | 532.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.24 TFLOPS | 34.1 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 360 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 96 |
| TMUs | 32 | 320 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
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 size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | no data |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 2000 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 768.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | HDMIVGALVDSSingle Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVI | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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 | 28
−3650%
| 1050−1100
+3650%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−3567%
|
220−230
+3567%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−3650%
|
150−160
+3650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−3650%
|
300−310
+3650%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−3567%
|
220−230
+3567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−3400%
|
350−400
+3400%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3688%
|
1250−1300
+3688%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
−3567%
|
1100−1150
+3567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−3724%
|
650−700
+3724%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−3650%
|
150−160
+3650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−3650%
|
300−310
+3650%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−3567%
|
220−230
+3567%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−3400%
|
350−400
+3400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−3614%
|
260−270
+3614%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3688%
|
1250−1300
+3688%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−3724%
|
650−700
+3724%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−3650%
|
300−310
+3650%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−3567%
|
220−230
+3567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−3400%
|
350−400
+3400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−3614%
|
260−270
+3614%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3688%
|
1250−1300
+3688%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−3650%
|
150−160
+3650%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−3650%
|
150−160
+3650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−3650%
|
300−310
+3650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−3471%
|
500−550
+3471%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−3700%
|
190−200
+3700%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3567%
|
110−120
+3567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−3567%
|
550−600
+3567%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−3614%
|
260−270
+3614%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| God of War | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
This is how GTS 250M and RTX A5500 compete in popular games:
- RTX A5500 is 3650% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.32 | 50.54 |
| Recency | 15 June 2009 | 22 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 24 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 230 Watt |
GTS 250M has 721.4% lower power consumption.
RTX A5500, on the other hand, has a 3728.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A5500 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTS 250M is a notebook graphics card while RTX A5500 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
