GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER vs Radeon HD 6250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6250 and GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 4070 SUPER outperforms HD 6250 by a whopping 32450% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1368 | 9 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 13 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 66.35 |
| Power efficiency | 0.87 | 24.50 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Cedar | AD104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 31 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 7168 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 1980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2475 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 35,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 220 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.200 | 554.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.104 TFLOPS | 35.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 80 |
| TMUs | 8 | 224 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 224 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 56 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 16-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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1313 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 8 GB/s | 504.2 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | + | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
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.
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.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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
−3533%
| 218
+3533%
|
| 1440p | -0−1 | 143 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 86 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.75 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.19 |
| 4K | no data | 6.97 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−2225%
|
186
+2225%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−32400%
|
650−700
+32400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−2175%
|
182
+2175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−32400%
|
650−700
+32400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−8580%
|
434
+8580%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−3525%
|
140−150
+3525%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1888%
|
159
+1888%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−32400%
|
650−700
+32400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−2433%
|
152
+2433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−8460%
|
428
+8460%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−3483%
|
210−220
+3483%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−3525%
|
140−150
+3525%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−4250%
|
170−180
+4250%
|
| World of Tanks | 12−14
−2225%
|
270−280
+2225%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1638%
|
139
+1638%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−32400%
|
650−700
+32400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−2350%
|
140−150
+2350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−7520%
|
381
+7520%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−3483%
|
210−220
+3483%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−17400%
|
170−180
+17400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−867%
|
87
+867%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−32400%
|
650−700
+32400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−3900%
|
160−170
+3900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−7600%
|
154
+7600%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−9125%
|
350−400
+9125%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1007%
|
166
+1007%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1007%
|
166
+1007%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 0−1 | 200−210 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−1007%
|
166
+1007%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 90−95 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−29900%
|
300−310
+29900%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−32233%
|
4850−4900
+32233%
|
| Valorant | 0−1 | 210−220 |
Full HD
Low Preset
| Elden Ring | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 148
+0%
|
148
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 148
+0%
|
148
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 265
+0%
|
265
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
This is how HD 6250 and RTX 4070 SUPER compete in popular games:
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 3533% 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 RTX 4070 SUPER is 17400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 4070 SUPER is ahead in 23 tests (44%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (56%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.24 | 78.12 |
| Recency | 31 January 2011 | 8 January 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 220 Watt |
HD 6250 has 1057.9% lower power consumption.
RTX 4070 SUPER, on the other hand, has a 32450% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6250 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
