Radeon R7 250E vs GeForce GTX 550 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 550 Ti and Radeon R7 250E, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 250E outperforms 550 Ti by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 752 | 729 |
Place by popularity | 87 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.66 | 1.05 |
Power efficiency | 2.46 | 5.59 |
Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
GPU code name | GF116 | Cape Verde |
Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
Release date | 15 March 2011 (14 years ago) | 20 December 2013 (11 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $109 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R7 250E has 59% better value for money than GTX 550 Ti.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 192 | 512 |
Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 800 MHz |
Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 1,500 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 55 Watt |
Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 25.60 |
Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 0.8192 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 24 | 16 |
TMUs | 32 | 32 |
L1 Cache | 256 KB | 128 KB |
L2 Cache | 384 KB | 256 KB |
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 | no data |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Length | 210 mm | 168 mm |
Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
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 | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 4.1 GB/s | 1125 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 98.4 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
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 | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
Multi monitor support | + | no data |
HDMI | + | + |
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
CUDA | + | - |
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 | 38
−5.3%
| 40−45
+5.3%
|
Full HD | 37
+5.7%
| 35−40
−5.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
1080p | 4.03
−29.3%
| 3.11
+29.3%
|
- R7 250E has 29% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Valorant | 50−55
−3.8%
|
55−60
+3.8%
|
Full HD
High
Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−2.9%
|
70−75
+2.9%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Valorant | 50−55
−3.8%
|
55−60
+3.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Valorant | 50−55
−3.8%
|
55−60
+3.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
High
Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
Valorant | 35−40
−2.6%
|
40−45
+2.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
High
Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Valorant | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
4K
Ultra
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Epic
Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how GTX 550 Ti and R7 250E compete in popular games:
- R7 250E is 5% faster in 900p
- GTX 550 Ti is 6% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 3.53 | 3.80 |
Recency | 15 March 2011 | 20 December 2013 |
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 55 Watt |
GTX 550 Ti has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
R7 250E, on the other hand, has a 7.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 110.9% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 550 Ti and Radeon R7 250E.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.