GeForce GTS 150M vs Radeon HD 6250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6250 with GeForce GTS 150M, including specs and performance data.
GTS 150M outperforms HD 6250 by a whopping 446% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1377 | 1042 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.87 | 1.99 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Cedar | G94 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 31 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 3 March 2009 (15 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 | 80 | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.200 | 12.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.104 TFLOPS | 0.128 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 192 |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 8 | 32 |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| SLI options | - | 2-way |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | Up to 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 8 GB/s | 51 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI | DisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVILVDSSingle Link DVIVGA |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
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 | 6
−400%
| 30−35
+400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−26.9%
|
30−35
+26.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−133%
|
27−30
+133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−26.9%
|
30−35
+26.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−26.9%
|
30−35
+26.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how HD 6250 and GTS 150M compete in popular games:
- GTS 150M is 400% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTS 150M is 700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTS 150M is ahead in 30 tests (63%)
- there's a draw in 18 tests (38%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.24 | 1.31 |
| Recency | 31 January 2011 | 3 March 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 45 Watt |
HD 6250 has an age advantage of 1 year, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 136.8% lower power consumption.
GTS 150M, on the other hand, has a 445.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce GTS 150M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6250 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6250 is a desktop card while GeForce GTS 150M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
