Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile vs Radeon HD 6250

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 6250 with RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile, including specs and performance data.

HD 6250
2011
512 MB GDDR3, 19 Watt
0.21

Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms HD 6250 by a whopping 11100% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1428254
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.8954.34
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameCedarAD107
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date31 January 2011 (14 years ago)26 February 2024 (1 year 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 cores802048
Core clock speed650 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2025 MHz
Number of transistors292 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)19 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate5.200129.6
Floating-point processing power0.104 TFLOPS8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs432
TMUs864
Tensor Coresno data64
Ray Tracing Coresno data16
L1 Cache16 KB2 MB
L2 Cache128 KB12 MB

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth8 GB/s128.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMIPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.8
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.23.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA-8.9
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

HD 6250 0.21
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile 23.52
+11100%

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.

HD 6250 172
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile 20464
+11797%

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.

HD 6250 422
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile 66297
+15610%

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.

HD 6250 1091
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile 92300
+8360%

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 HD6
−10733%
650−700
+10733%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−10900%
110−120
+10900%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−10900%
550−600
+10900%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−10900%
110−120
+10900%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−9900%
300−310
+9900%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−10900%
550−600
+10900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−10614%
750−800
+10614%
Valorant 24−27
−11100%
2800−2850
+11100%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
−10733%
1300−1350
+10733%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−10900%
110−120
+10900%
Dota 2 9−10
−11011%
1000−1050
+11011%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−9900%
300−310
+9900%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−10900%
550−600
+10900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−10614%
750−800
+10614%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−10900%
550−600
+10900%
Valorant 24−27
−11100%
2800−2850
+11100%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−10900%
110−120
+10900%
Dota 2 9−10
−11011%
1000−1050
+11011%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−9900%
300−310
+9900%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−10900%
550−600
+10900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−10614%
750−800
+10614%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−10900%
550−600
+10900%
Valorant 24−27
−11100%
2800−2850
+11100%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−10900%
220−230
+10900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−10900%
220−230
+10900%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−10900%
110−120
+10900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−10900%
1650−1700
+10900%
Valorant 1−2
−10900%
110−120
+10900%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−10900%
110−120
+10900%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−10900%
220−230
+10900%

This is how HD 6250 and Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile compete in popular games:

  • Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile is 10733% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.21 23.52
Recency 31 January 2011 26 February 2024
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 19 Watt 35 Watt

HD 6250 has 84.2% lower power consumption.

Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile, on the other hand, has a 11100% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6250 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 6250 is a desktop graphics card while RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile 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.


AMD Radeon HD 6250
Radeon HD 6250
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile
RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile

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.


3.3 91 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 43 votes

Rate RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 6250 or RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.