Radeon Pro 580X vs GeForce MX250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX250 with Radeon Pro 580X, including specs and performance data.
Pro 580X outperforms MX250 by a whopping 218% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 640 | 339 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 43.47 | 9.20 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP108B | Polaris 20 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 20 February 2019 (6 years ago) | 18 March 2019 (6 years ago) |
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 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 937 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 24.91 | 172.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 5.53 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 24 | 144 |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | 576 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 2 MB |
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 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1695 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 217.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 (6.4) | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
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 | 22
−195%
| 65−70
+195%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75
−207%
|
230−240
+207%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
−186%
|
40−45
+186%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 15
−200%
|
45−50
+200%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 24
−213%
|
75−80
+213%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 41
−217%
|
130−140
+217%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
−216%
|
60−65
+216%
|
| Fortnite | 55
−209%
|
170−180
+209%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 31
−206%
|
95−100
+206%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 17
−194%
|
50−55
+194%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 28
−204%
|
85−90
+204%
|
| Valorant | 118
−197%
|
350−400
+197%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 19
−216%
|
60−65
+216%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21
−210%
|
65−70
+210%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
−213%
|
300−310
+213%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| Dota 2 | 64
−213%
|
200−210
+213%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
−194%
|
50−55
+194%
|
| Fortnite | 25
−200%
|
75−80
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24
−213%
|
75−80
+213%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 13
−208%
|
40−45
+208%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 28
−204%
|
85−90
+204%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 23
−204%
|
70−75
+204%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
−210%
|
65−70
+210%
|
| Valorant | 115
−204%
|
350−400
+204%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14
−186%
|
40−45
+186%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| Dota 2 | 57
−216%
|
180−190
+216%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
−213%
|
50−55
+213%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
−213%
|
50−55
+213%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 19
−216%
|
60−65
+216%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−213%
|
210−220
+213%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 22
−195%
|
65−70
+195%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
−195%
|
130−140
+195%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−216%
|
120−130
+216%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−213%
|
200−210
+213%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−186%
|
40−45
+186%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−194%
|
50−55
+194%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−210%
|
90−95
+210%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−200%
|
60−65
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
This is how GeForce MX250 and Pro 580X compete in popular games:
- Pro 580X is 195% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.61 | 17.82 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 150 Watt |
GeForce MX250 has 1400% lower power consumption.
Pro 580X, on the other hand, has a 217.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Radeon Pro 580X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX250 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX250 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro 580X is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
