GeForce MX250 vs NVS 5400M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 5400M with GeForce MX250, including specs and performance data.

NVS 5400M
2012
2 GB GDDR3, 35 Watt
1.56

MX250 outperforms NVS 5400M by a whopping 283% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking974598
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.1642.35
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGF108GP108B
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 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 cores96384
Core clock speed660 MHz937 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1038 MHz
Number of transistors585 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate10.5624.91
Floating-point processing power0.2534 TFLOPS0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs416
TMUs1624

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 sizemedium sizedlarge
InterfaceMXMPCIe 3.0 x4
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s48.06 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.7 (6.4)
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
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 1.56
GeForce MX250 5.98
+283%

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
    • 3DMark Vantage Performance
    • GeekBench 5 OpenCL

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 623
GeForce MX250 2392
+284%

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 2114
GeForce MX250 9302
+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 HD17
−35.3%
23
+35.3%

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−367%
14
+367%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−200%
15
+200%
Battlefield 5 3−4
−700%
24
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−267%
11
+267%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−850%
19
+850%
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
−228%
118
+228%
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 2−3
−750%
17
+750%
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 2−3
−250%
7
+250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
−130%
23
+130%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−200%
21
+200%
Valorant 35−40
−219%
115
+219%
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 2−3
−700%
16
+700%
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
−86.1%
65−70
+86.1%
Fortnite 5−6
−340%
22
+340%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 10−11
−350%
45−50
+350%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
−260%
35−40
+260%
Valorant 8−9
−725%
65−70
+725%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−160%
12−14
+160%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%
Hogwarts Legacy 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%
Fortnite 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Valorant 8−9
−263%
27−30
+263%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 2−3
Dota 2 2−3
−900%
20−22
+900%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Fortnite 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Counter-Strike 2 75
+0%
75
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 41
+0%
41
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21
+0%
21
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
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%
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+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 Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 1300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce MX250 is ahead in 49 tests (80%)
  • there's a draw in 12 tests (20%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.56 5.98
Recency 1 June 2012 20 February 2019
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 10 Watt

GeForce MX250 has a 283.3% 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.

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 NVS 5400M
NVS 5400M
NVIDIA GeForce MX250
GeForce MX250

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.


3.7
47 votes

Rate NVS 5400M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6
1596 votes

Rate GeForce MX250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about NVS 5400M or GeForce MX250, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.