Radeon 780M vs GeForce GTS 250M

Place in the ranking	998	301
Place by popularity	not in top-100	49
Power efficiency	3.50	83.81
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	GT215	Hawx Point
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	15 June 2009 (15 years ago)	6 December 2023 (1 year 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	768
Core clock speed	500 MHz	800 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2700 MHz
Number of transistors	727 million	25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	16.00	129.6
Floating-point processing power	0.24 TFLOPS	8.294 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	360	no data
ROPs	8	32
TMUs	32	48
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	12

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 x8
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None
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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	Up to 2000 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	51.2 GB/s	no data
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 Connectors	HDMIVGALVDSSingle Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVI	Portable Device Dependent
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 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	6.8
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
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 250M 1.43

Radeon 780M 18.33
+1182%

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 250M 553

Radeon 780M 7064
+1177%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTS 250M 3659

Radeon 780M 41622
+1038%

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 −25%	35 +25%
1440p	1−2 −1700%	18 +1700%
4K	0−1	12

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−875%

39
+875%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −583%	40−45 +583%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −825%	35−40 +825%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −675%	31 +675%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −2050%	40−45 +2050%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −1533%	45−50 +1533%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −3733%	110−120 +3733%
Hitman 3	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −500%	90−95 +500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −2350%	45−50 +2350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −650%	60−65 +650%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −164%	85−90 +164%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −583%	40−45 +583%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −825%	35−40 +825%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −500%	24 +500%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −2050%	40−45 +2050%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −1533%	45−50 +1533%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −3733%	110−120 +3733%
Hitman 3	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −500%	90−95 +500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −2350%	45−50 +2350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −575%	54 +575%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −282%	40−45 +282%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −164%	85−90 +164%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −583%	40−45 +583%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −825%	35−40 +825%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −475%	23 +475%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −2050%	40−45 +2050%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −3733%	110−120 +3733%
Hitman 3	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −253%	53 +253%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −475%	46 +475%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −164%	29 +164%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +83.3%	18 −83.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−2350%

45−50
+2350%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −1300%	27−30 +1300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −1800%	18−20 +1800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	20−22
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Hitman 3	7−8 −214%	21−24 +214%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −640%	35−40 +640%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −1900%	20 +1900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −1471%	110−120 +1471%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−650%

30−33
+650%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−1300%

14−16
+1300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −1000%	10−12 +1000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	10−11
Far Cry 5	0−1	10−11

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−433%

16−18
+433%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

30−33

+0%

30−33

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	100−105 +0%	100−105 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	32 +0%	32 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	15 +0%	15 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	17 +0%	17 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

This is how GTS 250M and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

Radeon 780M is 25% faster in 1080p
Radeon 780M is 1700% faster in 1440p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTS 250M is 83% faster.
in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 780M is 3733% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTS 250M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
Radeon 780M is ahead in 48 tests (70%)
there's a draw in 20 tests (29%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.43	18.33
Recency	15 June 2009	6 December 2023
Chip lithography	40 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	15 Watt

Radeon 780M has a 1181.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 900% more advanced lithography process, and 86.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.