MX250 vs GTX 460 768MB

#ad
Buy
VS
#ad
Buy

Combined performance score

GTX 460 768MB
4.38

MX250 outperforms GTX 460 768MB by 43% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking626541
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for moneyno data2.40
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameno dataN17S-G2
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release dateno data20 February 2019 (5 years old)
Current price$149 $1165
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores336384
Core clock speed675 MHz1518 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1582 MHz
Number of transistorsno data1,800 million
Manufacturing process technologyno data14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data10/25 Watt
Texture fill rateno data24.91

Size and compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 460 768MB and GeForce MX250 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x4
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

Memory

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data4 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz7000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data48.06 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

Video outputs and ports

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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API support

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

DirectX1112 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkanno data1.2
CUDAno data6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

GTX 460 768MB 4.38
GeForce MX250 6.27
+43.2%

MX250 outperforms GTX 460 768MB by 43% in our combined benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 460 768MB 12262
GeForce MX250 16488
+34.5%

MX250 outperforms GTX 460 768MB by 34% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 460 768MB 2811
GeForce MX250 4633
+64.8%

MX250 outperforms GTX 460 768MB by 65% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 460 768MB 2092
GeForce MX250 3660
+75%

MX250 outperforms GTX 460 768MB by 75% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 460 768MB 17589
GeForce MX250 21545
+22.5%

MX250 outperforms GTX 460 768MB by 22% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

GTX 460 768MB 133103
GeForce MX250 235421
+76.9%

MX250 outperforms GTX 460 768MB by 77% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

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 HD47
+104%
23
−104%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−75%
14
+75%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−138%
19
+138%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−333%
13
+333%
Battlefield 5 12−14
−100%
24
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
−53.3%
23
+53.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−37.5%
11
+37.5%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−111%
19
+111%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
−133%
21
+133%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−121%
31
+121%
Hitman 3 9−10
−66.7%
14−16
+66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−62.5%
13
+62.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−75%
14
+75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−50%
18
+50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−62.5%
13
+62.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Battlefield 5 12−14
−58.3%
19
+58.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
−6.7%
16
+6.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−88.9%
17
+88.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
−100%
18
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−71.4%
24
+71.4%
Hitman 3 9−10
+28.6%
7
−28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+33.3%
6
−33.3%
Metro Exodus 6−7
−16.7%
7
+16.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+9.1%
11
−9.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−133%
21
+133%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+14.3%
7
−14.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Battlefield 5 12−14
−16.7%
14
+16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−77.8%
16
+77.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
−88.9%
17
+88.9%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−14.3%
16
+14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−33.3%
12
+33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Hitman 3 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Hitman 3 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 1−2
Far Cry 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%

This is how GTX 460 768MB and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • GTX 460 768MB is 104% faster than GeForce MX250

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 460 768MB is 33.3% faster than the GeForce MX250.
  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 333% faster than the GTX 460 768MB.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 460 768MB is ahead in 4 tests (7%)
  • GeForce MX250 is ahead in 54 tests (89%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 4.38 6.27

The GeForce MX250 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 460 768MB in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 460 768MB is a desktop card while GeForce MX250 is a notebook one.


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

User ratings

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 768MB
GeForce GTX 460 768MB
NVIDIA GeForce MX250
GeForce MX250

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 79 votes

Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 768MB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1447 votes

Rate NVIDIA GeForce MX250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.