Radeon Graphics vs GeForce MX250

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX250 with Radeon Graphics, including specs and performance data.

GeForce MX250
2019
2 GB GDDR5, 10 Watt
6.24
+214%

MX250 outperforms Graphics by a whopping 214% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking582902
Place by popularitynot in top-1008
Power efficiency43.059.15
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGP108BRenoir
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date20 February 2019 (5 years ago)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 cores384448
Core clock speed937 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1038 MHz1500 MHz
Number of transistors1,800 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate24.9142.00
Floating-point processing power0.7972 TFLOPS1.344 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs2428

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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x4IGP
Widthno dataIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1502 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth48.06 GB/sno data
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.7 (6.4)no data
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.0no data
Vulkan1.3-
CUDA6.1-

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
+214%
Radeon Graphics 1.99

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
+214%
Radeon Graphics 764

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 HD23
+229%
7−8
−229%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+250%
4−5
−250%
Elden Ring 15
+275%
4−5
−275%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 17
+240%
5−6
−240%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 29
+222%
9−10
−222%
Metro Exodus 21
+250%
6−7
−250%
Red Dead Redemption 2 28
+250%
8−9
−250%
Valorant 18−20
+217%
6−7
−217%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18
+260%
5−6
−260%
Counter-Strike 2 5
+400%
1−2
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Dota 2 40
+233%
12−14
−233%
Elden Ring 11
+267%
3−4
−267%
Far Cry 5 40
+233%
12−14
−233%
Fortnite 35−40
+270%
10−11
−270%
Forza Horizon 4 22
+214%
7−8
−214%
Grand Theft Auto V 28
+250%
8−9
−250%
Metro Exodus 12
+300%
3−4
−300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 76
+217%
24−27
−217%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8
+300%
2−3
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Valorant 14
+250%
4−5
−250%
World of Tanks 95−100
+227%
30−33
−227%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 13
+225%
4−5
−225%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Dota 2 57
+217%
18−20
−217%
Far Cry 5 29
+222%
9−10
−222%
Forza Horizon 4 16
+220%
5−6
−220%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+219%
16−18
−219%
Valorant 18−20
+217%
6−7
−217%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Elden Ring 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+270%
10−11
−270%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
World of Tanks 45−50
+221%
14−16
−221%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Valorant 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%
Elden Ring 3−4 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+260%
5−6
−260%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Fortnite 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Valorant 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

This is how GeForce MX250 and Graphics compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX250 is 229% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.24 1.99
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 15 Watt

GeForce MX250 has a 213.6% higher aggregate performance score, and 50% lower power consumption.

Graphics, on the other hand, has a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce MX250 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Graphics in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX250 is a notebook card while Radeon Graphics 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 MX250
GeForce MX250
AMD Radeon Graphics
Radeon Graphics

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.


3.6 1572 votes

Rate GeForce MX250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 6537 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics 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.