Radeon R7 250 vs GeForce GTX 980M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 980M with Radeon R7 250, including specs and performance data.

GTX 980M
2014
8 GB GDDR5
19.12
+600%

GTX 980M outperforms R7 250 by a whopping 600% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking293808
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.10
Power efficiency13.192.90
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameGM204Oland
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date7 October 2014 (10 years ago)8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$89

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1536384
Core clock speed1038 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1127 MHz1050 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million950 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown75 Watt
Texture fill rate51.8425.20
Floating-point processing power1.659 TFLOPS0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPs648
TMUs9624

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0PCIe 3.0
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x8
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneN/A
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed2500 MHz1150 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s72 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI++
G-SYNC support+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration-+
CrossFire-+
FreeSync-+
DDMA audiono data+
GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
BatteryBoost+-
Ansel+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)DirectX® 12
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.11.2
Vulkan1.1.126-
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 980M 19.12
+600%
R7 250 2.73

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 980M 7352
+601%
R7 250 1049

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.

GTX 980M 12517
+351%
R7 250 2775

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.

GTX 980M 31944
+154%
R7 250 12581

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 980M 9682
+351%
R7 250 2145

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.

GTX 980M 65241
+333%
R7 250 15080

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

GTX 980M 111
+304%
R7 250 27

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:

900p173
+621%
24−27
−621%
Full HD71
+274%
19
−274%
1440p34
+750%
4−5
−750%
4K28
+833%
3−4
−833%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.68
1440pno data22.25
4Kno data29.67

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+240%
10−11
−240%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+533%
6−7
−533%
Elden Ring 60−65
+1100%
5−6
−1100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 56
+700%
7−8
−700%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+240%
10−11
−240%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+533%
6−7
−533%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+515%
12−14
−515%
Metro Exodus 60
+1400%
4−5
−1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+340%
10−11
−340%
Valorant 75−80
+670%
10−11
−670%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 59
+743%
7−8
−743%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+240%
10−11
−240%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+533%
6−7
−533%
Dota 2 40
+471%
7−8
−471%
Elden Ring 60−65
+1100%
5−6
−1100%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+306%
16−18
−306%
Fortnite 88
+487%
14−16
−487%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+515%
12−14
−515%
Grand Theft Auto V 60
+757%
7−8
−757%
Metro Exodus 40
+900%
4−5
−900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 182
+628%
24−27
−628%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+340%
10−11
−340%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 58
+480%
10−11
−480%
Valorant 75−80
+670%
10−11
−670%
World of Tanks 230
+369%
45−50
−369%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50
+614%
7−8
−614%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+240%
10−11
−240%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+533%
6−7
−533%
Dota 2 65−70
+871%
7−8
−871%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+306%
16−18
−306%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+515%
12−14
−515%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 49
+96%
24−27
−96%
Valorant 75−80
+670%
10−11
−670%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 30−33 0−1
Elden Ring 30−35
+1450%
2−3
−1450%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+789%
18−20
−789%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
World of Tanks 130−140
+628%
18−20
−628%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 34
+1600%
2−3
−1600%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+629%
7−8
−629%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50 0−1
Metro Exodus 38
+660%
5−6
−660%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%
Valorant 45−50
+444%
9−10
−444%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
Dota 2 41
+156%
16−18
−156%
Elden Ring 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Grand Theft Auto V 41
+173%
14−16
−173%
Metro Exodus 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 48
+500%
8−9
−500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 41
+173%
14−16
−173%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 17
+750%
2−3
−750%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Dota 2 30−35
+106%
16−18
−106%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Fortnite 21
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Valorant 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%

This is how GTX 980M and R7 250 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 980M is 621% faster in 900p
  • GTX 980M is 274% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 980M is 750% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 980M is 833% faster in 4K

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

  • in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 980M is 2900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 980M surpassed R7 250 in all 53 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.12 2.73
Recency 7 October 2014 8 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 2 GB

GTX 980M has a 600.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The GeForce GTX 980M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980M is a notebook card while Radeon R7 250 is a desktop one.


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

Vote for your favorite

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


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M
GeForce GTX 980M
AMD Radeon R7 250
Radeon R7 250

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


4.2 338 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 980M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 442 votes

Rate Radeon R7 250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

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