Radeon Vega 7 vs HD 6250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6250 with Radeon Vega 7, including specs and performance data.
Vega 7 outperforms HD 6250 by a whopping 3021% 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 | 543 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 10 |
| Power efficiency | 0.87 | 11.41 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Cedar | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 31 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (3 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 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.200 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.104 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 8 |
| TMUs | 8 | 28 |
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 | IGP |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 8 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
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.
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
−300%
| 24
+300%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 25 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 18 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18
+1700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1750%
|
37
+1750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−257%
|
24−27
+257%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−188%
|
75−80
+188%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−383%
|
58
+383%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−3011%
|
280−290
+3011%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35
+1650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−229%
|
23
+229%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−533%
|
19
+533%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−181%
|
73
+181%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−800%
|
9
+800%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−3011%
|
280−290
+3011%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27
+1250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−257%
|
24−27
+257%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−333%
|
13
+333%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+4%
|
25
−4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−3800%
|
35−40
+3800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−1150%
|
25
+1150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how HD 6250 and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Vega 7 is 300% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 6250 is 4% faster.
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Vega 7 is 3800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6250 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Vega 7 is ahead in 30 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 32 tests (51%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.24 | 7.49 |
| Recency | 31 January 2011 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 45 Watt |
HD 6250 has 136.8% lower power consumption.
Vega 7, on the other hand, has a 3020.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Vega 7 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 Radeon Vega 7 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.
