GeForce GTS 250M vs Radeon HD 5850
Aggregated performance score
Radeon HD 5850 outperforms GeForce GTS 250M by 259% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 584 | 949 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.79 | 0.09 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | Cypress | N10E-GE |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 September 2009 (14 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | no data |
| Current price | $120 (0.4x MSRP) | $230 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
ATI HD 5850 has 778% better value for money than GTS 250M.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1440 | 96 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,154 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 151 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 52.20 | 16.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,088.0 gflops | 240 gflops |
| Gigaflops | no data | 360 |
Size and compatibility
Information on Radeon HD 5850 and GeForce GTS 250M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | no data | + |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
Memory
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 | DDR3, GDDR3, GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | Up to 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | HDMIVGALVDSSingle Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVI |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Radeon HD 5850 outperforms GeForce GTS 250M by 259% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Radeon HD 5850 outperforms GeForce GTS 250M by 259% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Radeon HD 5850 outperforms GeForce GTS 250M by 263% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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 | 59
+269%
| 16−18
−269%
|
| Full HD | 57
+104%
| 28
−104%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how ATI HD 5850 and GTS 250M compete in popular games:
- ATI HD 5850 is 269% faster than GTS 250M in 900p
- ATI HD 5850 is 104% faster than GTS 250M in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the ATI HD 5850 is 1600% faster than the GTS 250M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, ATI HD 5850 surpassed GTS 250M in all 32 of our tests.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 5.13 | 1.43 |
| Recency | 30 September 2009 | 15 June 2009 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 151 Watt | 28 Watt |
The Radeon HD 5850 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 5850 is a desktop card while GeForce GTS 250M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
