Radeon R7 250X vs GeForce GTX 470

Place in the ranking	520	595
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.34	0.63
Power efficiency	2.59	5.07
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GF100	Cape Verde
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	26 March 2010 (14 years ago)	13 February 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$349	$99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 470 has 113% better value for money than R7 250X.

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	448	640
Core clock speed	607 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	1000 MHz
Number of transistors	3,100 million	1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	215 Watt	80 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	34.05	38.00
Floating-point processing power	1.089 TFLOPS	1.216 TFLOPS
ROPs	40	16
TMUs	56	40

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).

Bus support	16x PCI-E 2.0	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	241 mm	210 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	1 x 6-pin
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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1280 MB	2 GB
Memory bus width	320 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1674 MHz (3348 data rate)	1625 MHz
Memory bandwidth	133.9 GB/s	96 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	Two Dual Link DVIMini HDMI	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	+	no data
Eyefinity	-	+
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire	-	+
FreeSync	-	+
DDMA audio	no data	+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.2	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	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. 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 470 8.09
+37.1%

R7 250X 5.90

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.

GTX 470 3110
+37.1%

R7 250X 2268

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.

GTX 470 2758

R7 250X 2860
+3.7%

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:

900p	55 +37.5%	40−45 −37.5%
Full HD	63 +40%	45−50 −40%
1200p	53 +51.4%	35−40 −51.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

5.54
−152%

2.20

+152%

R7 250X has 152% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Elden Ring	21−24 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +37.5%	24−27 −37.5%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +37.5%	16−18 −37.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +37.5%	16−18 −37.5%
Valorant	30−33 +42.9%	21−24 −42.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Dota 2	27−30 +38.1%	21−24 −38.1%
Elden Ring	21−24 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +45.8%	24−27 −45.8%
Fortnite	45−50 +37.1%	35−40 −37.1%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +37.5%	24−27 −37.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +38.1%	21−24 −38.1%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +37.5%	16−18 −37.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 +42.2%	45−50 −42.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +37.5%	16−18 −37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +38.9%	18−20 −38.9%
Valorant	30−33 +42.9%	21−24 −42.9%
World of Tanks	120−130 +43.5%	85−90 −43.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Dota 2	64 +42.2%	45−50 −42.2%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +45.8%	24−27 −45.8%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +37.5%	24−27 −37.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 +42.2%	45−50 −42.2%
Valorant	30−33 +42.9%	21−24 −42.9%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Elden Ring	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +48.1%	27−30 −48.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
World of Tanks	55−60 +45%	40−45 −45%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +52.4%	21−24 −52.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +41.7%	12−14 −41.7%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +41.7%	12−14 −41.7%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Valorant	20−22 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Dota 2	18−20 +58.3%	12−14 −58.3%
Elden Ring	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +50%	12−14 −50%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +50%	12−14 −50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Counter-Strike 2	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Dota 2	18−20 +58.3%	12−14 −58.3%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Fortnite	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Valorant	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%

This is how GTX 470 and R7 250X compete in popular games:

GTX 470 is 38% faster in 900p
GTX 470 is 40% faster in 1080p
GTX 470 is 51% faster in 1200p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.09	5.90
Recency	26 March 2010	13 February 2014
Maximum RAM amount	1280 MB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	215 Watt	80 Watt

GTX 470 has a 37.1% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 250X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 60% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 168.8% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 470 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250X in performance tests.

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