Radeon R7 250X vs ATI Mobility HD 5870 Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 5870 Crossfire with Radeon R7 250X, including specs and performance data.
R7 250X outperforms Mobility HD 5870 Crossfire by a moderate 16% 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 | 687 | 654 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.63 |
| Power efficiency | 3.00 | 5.21 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Broadway-XT | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 13 February 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1600 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 38.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.216 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 40 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
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 |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 210 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1 x 6-pin |
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 | DDR3, GDDR3, GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 96 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 | no data | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
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:
| 900p | 53
−13.2%
| 60−65
+13.2%
|
| Full HD | 54
−11.1%
| 60−65
+11.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.65 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−8.3%
|
65−70
+8.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
−9.8%
|
90−95
+9.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−8.3%
|
65−70
+8.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−8.3%
|
65−70
+8.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−14.3%
|
40−45
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−15.4%
|
60−65
+15.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−12.5%
|
27−30
+12.5%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how ATI Mobility HD 5870 Crossfire and R7 250X compete in popular games:
- R7 250X is 13% faster in 900p
- R7 250X is 11% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.69 | 5.42 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 13 February 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 80 Watt |
R7 250X has a 15.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 250X is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 5870 Crossfire in performance tests.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 5870 Crossfire is a notebook graphics card while Radeon R7 250X is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
