Radeon HD 8250 vs HD 6370M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6370M and Radeon HD 8250, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 6370M outperforms HD 8250 by a significant 29% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1217 | 1269 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.57 | 4.86 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | Robson | Kalindi |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 26 November 2010 (14 years ago) | 23 May 2013 (12 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 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 750 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 1,178 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 11 Watt | 8 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 6.000 | 3.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.12 TFLOPS | 0.1024 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 4 |
| TMUs | 8 | 8 |
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 |
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 | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
+11.8%
|
16−18
−11.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 6370M is 50% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6370M is ahead in 14 tests (45%)
- there's a draw in 17 tests (55%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.66 | 0.51 |
| Recency | 26 November 2010 | 23 May 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 11 Watt | 8 Watt |
HD 6370M has a 29.4% higher aggregate performance score.
HD 8250, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 37.5% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 6370M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8250 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
