GeForce MX250 vs NVS 5400M

Place in the ranking	987	609
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	3.13	42.39
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GF108	GP108B
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)	20 February 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	96	384
Core clock speed	660 MHz	937 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1038 MHz
Number of transistors	585 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	10.56	24.91
Floating-point processing power	0.2534 TFLOPS	0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	16
TMUs	16	24

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	medium sized	large
Interface	MXM	PCIe 3.0 x4
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	48.06 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

No outputs

Portable Device Dependent

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7 (6.4)
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	+	6.1

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.

NVS 5400M 1.47

GeForce MX250 5.68
+286%

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.

NVS 5400M 621

GeForce MX250 2392
+285%

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.

NVS 5400M 1119

GeForce MX250 4633
+314%

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.

NVS 5400M 5198

GeForce MX250 16488
+217%

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.

NVS 5400M 2121

GeForce MX250 9322
+340%

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

−35.3%

23
+35.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −367%	14 +367%
Hogwarts Legacy	5−6 −200%	15 +200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −700%	24 +700%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −267%	11 +267%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −1800%	19 +1800%
Fortnite	5−6 −1000%	55 +1000%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −288%	31 +288%
Forza Horizon 5	0−1	17
Hogwarts Legacy	5−6 −60%	8 +60%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 −180%	28 +180%
Valorant	35−40 −237%	118 +237%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −533%	19 +533%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	30−35 −194%	95−100 +194%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Dota 2	18−20 −256%	64 +256%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −1600%	17 +1600%
Fortnite	5−6 −400%	25 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −200%	24 +200%
Forza Horizon 5	0−1	13
Grand Theft Auto V	2−3 −1300%	28 +1300%
Hogwarts Legacy	5−6 −120%	10−12 +120%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −133%	7 +133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 −130%	23 +130%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −200%	21 +200%
Valorant	35−40 −229%	115 +229%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −367%	14 +367%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Dota 2	18−20 −217%	57 +217%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −1500%	16 +1500%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −100%	16 +100%
Hogwarts Legacy	5−6 −120%	10−12 +120%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 −90%	19 +90%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −71.4%	12 +71.4%
Valorant	35−40 −91.4%	65−70 +91.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite

5−6

−340%

22
+340%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	10−11 −350%	45−50 +350%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −153%	35−40 +153%
Valorant	8−9 −725%	65−70 +725%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −250%	14−16 +250%
Hogwarts Legacy	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

3−4

−300%

12−14
+300%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
Valorant	8−9 −263%	27−30 +263%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	2−3
Dota 2	2−3 −900%	20−22 +900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

2−3

−200%

6−7
+200%

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2

+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

4K
High Preset

Hogwarts Legacy	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Hogwarts Legacy	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how NVS 5400M and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX250 is 35% faster in 1080p

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

in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 1800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX250 is ahead in 47 tests (77%)
there's a draw in 14 tests (23%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.47	5.68
Recency	1 June 2012	20 February 2019
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	10 Watt

GeForce MX250 has a 286.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX250 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 5400M in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 5400M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce MX250 is a mobile workstation one.