ATI Radeon HD 3870 vs GeForce GTS 250M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 250M with Radeon HD 3870, including specs and performance data.
ATI HD 3870 outperforms GTS 250M by a minimal 1% 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 | 1015 | 1013 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 3.49 | 0.93 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | RV670 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 June 2009 (15 years ago) | 19 November 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $269 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 777 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 666 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 106 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 16.00 | 12.43 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.24 TFLOPS | 0.4973 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 360 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 16 |
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 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-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 | GDDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 2000 MHz | 1126 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 72.06 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 Connectors | HDMIVGALVDSSingle Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVI | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| 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) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| 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.
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
+3.7%
| 27−30
−3.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 9.96 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33
−13.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33
−13.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33
−13.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how GTS 250M and ATI HD 3870 compete in popular games:
- GTS 250M is 4% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.38 | 1.39 |
| Recency | 15 June 2009 | 19 November 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 106 Watt |
GTS 250M has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 278.6% lower power consumption.
ATI HD 3870, on the other hand, has a 0.7% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTS 250M and Radeon HD 3870.
Be aware that GeForce GTS 250M is a notebook card while Radeon HD 3870 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
