GeForce MX250 vs Radeon HD 7650M

Place in performance ranking	1033	543
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation	0.03	2.37
Architecture	Terascale 2 (2009−2015)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Thames-LP/Pro	N17S-G2
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	7 January 2012 (12 years ago)	20 February 2019 (5 years ago)
Current price	$338	$1165

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GeForce MX250 has 7800% better value for money than HD 7650M.

Detailed Specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	480	384
Core clock speed	450 MHz	1518 MHz
Boost clock speed	550 MHz	1582 MHz
Number of transistors	716 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	10/25 Watt
Texture fill rate	10.80	24.91
Floating-point performance	432.0 gflops	no data

Form Factor & Compatibility

Information on Radeon HD 7650M and GeForce MX250 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	medium sized	large
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x4
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	DDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1800 MHz	7000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	48.06 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

No outputs

API Compatibility

List of supported graphics 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	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2
CUDA	no data	6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

HD 7650M 1.14

GeForce MX250 6.26
+449%

GeForce MX250 outperforms Radeon HD 7650M by 449% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

HD 7650M 442

GeForce MX250 2423
+448%

GeForce MX250 outperforms Radeon HD 7650M by 448% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

HD 7650M 4563

GeForce MX250 16488
+261%

GeForce MX250 outperforms Radeon HD 7650M by 261% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

HD 7650M 946

GeForce MX250 4633
+390%

GeForce MX250 outperforms Radeon HD 7650M by 390% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

HD 7650M 700

GeForce MX250 3660
+423%

GeForce MX250 outperforms Radeon HD 7650M by 423% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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:

900p	18 −428%	95−100 +428%
Full HD	19 −21.1%	23 +21.1%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−367%

14
+367%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −156%	23 +156%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −267%	11 +267%
Hitman 3	1−2 −1400%	14−16 +1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −1200%	13 +1200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −367%	14 +367%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −157%	18 +157%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −77.8%	16 +77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Hitman 3	1−2 −600%	7 +600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −500%	6 +500%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −600%	7 +600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −167%	8 +167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −57.1%	11 +57.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −425%	21 +425%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −200%	12 +200%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
Hitman 3	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −50%	12−14 +50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 −80%	9−10 +80%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Hitman 3	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	3−4

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	3−4
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	2−3
Far Cry 5	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −60%	8−9 +60%

This is how HD 7650M and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX250 is 428% faster than HD 7650M in 900p
GeForce MX250 is 21.1% faster than HD 7650M in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Hitman 3, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 1400% faster than the HD 7650M.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, GeForce MX250 surpassed HD 7650M in all 29 of our tests.

Pros & Cons Summary

Performance score	1.14	6.26
Recency	7 January 2012	20 February 2019
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	10 Watt