RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs GeForce MX250

Place in the ranking	581	76
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	84.78
Power efficiency	43.05	44.72
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code name	GP108B	AD107
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	20 February 2019 (5 years ago)	12 February 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$649

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 cores	384	2816
Core clock speed	937 MHz	1620 MHz
Boost clock speed	1038 MHz	2130 MHz
Number of transistors	1,800 million	18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	10 Watt	70 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.91	187.4
Floating-point processing power	0.7972 TFLOPS	12 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	48
TMUs	24	88
Tensor Cores	no data	88
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	22

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 size	large	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x4	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	no data	168 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	48.06 GB/s	256.0 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

Portable Device Dependent

4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.7 (6.4)	6.8
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	3.0	3.0
Vulkan	1.3	1.3
CUDA	6.1	8.9

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.

GeForce MX250 6.24

RTX 2000 Ada Generation 45.37
+627%

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.

GeForce MX250 2400

RTX 2000 Ada Generation 17446
+627%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GeForce MX250 9294

RTX 2000 Ada Generation 86172
+827%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

GeForce MX250 9392

RTX 2000 Ada Generation 81859
+772%

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 HD

−596%

160−170
+596%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

4.06

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −614%	100−105 +614%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 −614%	100−105 +614%
Elden Ring	15 −567%	100−105 +567%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	17 −606%	120−130 +606%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −614%	100−105 +614%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 −600%	35−40 +600%
Forza Horizon 4	29 −624%	210−220 +624%
Metro Exodus	21 −614%	150−160 +614%
Red Dead Redemption 2	28 −614%	200−210 +614%
Valorant	18−20 −584%	130−140 +584%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18 −622%	130−140 +622%
Counter-Strike 2	5 −600%	35−40 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −608%	85−90 +608%
Dota 2	40 −625%	290−300 +625%
Elden Ring	11 −582%	75−80 +582%
Far Cry 5	40 −625%	290−300 +625%
Fortnite	35−40 −603%	260−270 +603%
Forza Horizon 4	22 −582%	150−160 +582%
Grand Theft Auto V	28 −614%	200−210 +614%
Metro Exodus	12 −608%	85−90 +608%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	76 −624%	550−600 +624%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8 −588%	55−60 +588%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 −600%	140−150 +600%
Valorant	14 −614%	100−105 +614%
World of Tanks	95−100 −614%	700−750 +614%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	13 −592%	90−95 +592%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −614%	100−105 +614%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −608%	85−90 +608%
Dota 2	57 −602%	400−450 +602%
Far Cry 5	29 −624%	210−220 +624%
Forza Horizon 4	16 −588%	110−120 +588%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 −586%	350−400 +586%
Valorant	18−20 −584%	130−140 +584%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	6−7 −567%	40−45 +567%
Elden Ring	8−9 −588%	55−60 +588%
Grand Theft Auto V	6−7 −567%	40−45 +567%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −603%	260−270 +603%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −600%	35−40 +600%
World of Tanks	45−50 −567%	300−310 +567%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 −600%	70−75 +600%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −622%	65−70 +622%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −600%	35−40 +600%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −592%	90−95 +592%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 −582%	75−80 +582%
Metro Exodus	8−9 −588%	55−60 +588%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −614%	50−55 +614%
Valorant	16−18 −588%	110−120 +588%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −606%	120−130 +606%
Elden Ring	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −606%	120−130 +606%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	18−20 −622%	130−140 +622%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −575%	27−30 +575%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −606%	120−130 +606%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 −600%	35−40 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%
Dota 2	16−18 −606%	120−130 +606%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −614%	50−55 +614%
Fortnite	6−7 −567%	40−45 +567%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −567%	40−45 +567%
Valorant	6−7 −567%	40−45 +567%

This is how GeForce MX250 and RTX 2000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:

RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 596% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.24	45.37
Recency	20 February 2019	12 February 2024
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	10 Watt	70 Watt

GeForce MX250 has 600% lower power consumption.

RTX 2000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 627.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX250 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX250 is a notebook card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.

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