Radeon R7 250X vs Quadro M3000M

Place in the ranking	358	594
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.63
Power efficiency	13.46	5.08
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GM204	Cape Verde
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)	13 February 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores	1,024	640
Core clock speed	1050 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	1000 MHz
Number of transistors	5,200 million	1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	80 Watt
Texture fill rate	67.20	38.00
Floating-point processing power	2.15 TFLOPS	1.216 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	64	40

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	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	210 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	1625 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160 GB/s	96 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort
Eyefinity	-	+
HDMI	-	+
Display Port	1.2	no data

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	+
Optimus	+	-
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	-
CUDA	5.2	-

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.

M3000M 14.67
+149%

R7 250X 5.90

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.

M3000M 5638
+149%

R7 250X 2268

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

M3000M 6537
+129%

R7 250X 2860

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	60 +150%	24−27 −150%
4K	32 +167%	12−14 −167%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	4.13
4K	no data	8.25

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +160%	10−11 −160%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +190%	10−11 −190%
Elden Ring	45−50 +150%	18−20 −150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +167%	18−20 −167%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +160%	10−11 −160%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +190%	10−11 −190%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +181%	21−24 −181%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +150%	16−18 −150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +157%	14−16 −157%
Valorant	55−60 +176%	21−24 −176%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +167%	18−20 −167%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +160%	10−11 −160%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +190%	10−11 −190%
Dota 2	33 +175%	12−14 −175%
Elden Ring	45−50 +150%	18−20 −150%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +157%	21−24 −157%
Fortnite	80−85 +173%	30−33 −173%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +181%	21−24 −181%
Grand Theft Auto V	49 +172%	18−20 −172%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +150%	16−18 −150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +165%	40−45 −165%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +157%	14−16 −157%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +150%	18−20 −150%
Valorant	55−60 +176%	21−24 −176%
World of Tanks	190−200 +155%	75−80 −155%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +167%	18−20 −167%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +160%	10−11 −160%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +190%	10−11 −190%
Dota 2	50−55 +152%	21−24 −152%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +157%	21−24 −157%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +181%	21−24 −181%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +165%	40−45 −165%
Valorant	55−60 +176%	21−24 −176%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 +163%	8−9 −163%
Elden Ring	21−24 +156%	9−10 −156%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +175%	8−9 −175%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +156%	50−55 −156%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
World of Tanks	100−110 +158%	40−45 −158%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +150%	14−16 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +157%	14−16 −157%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +167%	12−14 −167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +171%	7−8 −171%
Valorant	35−40 +164%	14−16 −164%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Dota 2	35 +150%	14−16 −150%
Elden Ring	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Grand Theft Auto V	35 +150%	14−16 −150%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +169%	16−18 −169%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35 +150%	14−16 −150%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Dota 2	24−27 +160%	10−11 −160%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +157%	7−8 −157%
Fortnite	16−18 +183%	6−7 −183%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +150%	8−9 −150%
Valorant	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%

This is how M3000M and R7 250X compete in popular games:

M3000M is 150% faster in 1080p
M3000M is 167% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.67	5.90
Recency	18 August 2015	13 February 2014
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	80 Watt

M3000M has a 148.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 6.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250X in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M3000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon R7 250X is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.