Radeon R7 250X vs GeForce GTX 670
Aggregate performance score
GeForce GTX 670 outperforms Radeon R7 250X by a whopping 135% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 353 | 559 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.41 | 0.61 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 10 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 13 February 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $99 |
| Current price | $22 (0.1x MSRP) | $207 (2.1x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 670 has 459% better value for money than R7 250X.
Detailed specifications
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 cores | 1344 | 640 |
| CUDA cores | 1344 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 102.5 billion/sec | 38.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,459.5 gflops | 1,216 gflops |
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 | PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 9.5" (24.1 cm) | 210 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | Two 6-pin | 1 x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256-bit GDDR5 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | 1625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 GB/s | 96 GB/s |
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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| Eyefinity | no data | 1 |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort support | 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.
| AppAcceleration | no data | - |
| CrossFire | no data | 1 |
| Enduro | no data | - |
| FreeSync | no data | 1 |
| HD3D | no data | - |
| PowerTune | no data | - |
| TrueAudio | no data | - |
| ZeroCore | no data | - |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | no data |
| 3D Gaming | + | no data |
| 3D Vision | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics 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 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | no data |
| Mantle | no data | - |
| CUDA | + | no data |
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.
GeForce GTX 670 outperforms Radeon R7 250X by 135% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX 670 outperforms Radeon R7 250X by 135% in Passmark.
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%
GeForce GTX 670 outperforms Radeon R7 250X by 145% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.79 | 5.87 |
| Recency | 10 May 2012 | 13 February 2014 |
| Cost | $399 | $99 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 80 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 670 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
