GeForce GTS 250M vs Radeon HD 7970
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7970 with GeForce GTS 250M, including specs and performance data.
HD 7970 outperforms GTS 250M by a whopping 847% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 394 | 1012 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.12 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.73 | 3.52 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GT215 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 22 December 2011 (13 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2048 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 925 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 118.4 | 16.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.789 TFLOPS | 0.24 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 360 |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 128 | 32 |
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 size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 2.1 x16 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 274 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no data |
| SLI options | - | + |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | Up to 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 264 GB/s | 51.2 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, 2x mini-DisplayPort | HDMIVGALVDSSingle Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVI |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 105
+950%
| 10−12
−950%
|
| Full HD | 93
+232%
| 28
−232%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.90 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+914%
|
7−8
−914%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+914%
|
7−8
−914%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+975%
|
4−5
−975%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1750%
|
4−5
−1750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+671%
|
7−8
−671%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+900%
|
4−5
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+411%
|
9−10
−411%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+224%
|
30−35
−224%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+914%
|
7−8
−914%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 212
+607%
|
30−33
−607%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+394%
|
16−18
−394%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+975%
|
4−5
−975%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1750%
|
4−5
−1750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+671%
|
7−8
−671%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+900%
|
4−5
−900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+411%
|
9−10
−411%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+224%
|
30−35
−224%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+394%
|
16−18
−394%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+975%
|
4−5
−975%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+671%
|
7−8
−671%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+411%
|
9−10
−411%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+224%
|
30−35
−224%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1750%
|
4−5
−1750%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+1100%
|
8−9
−1100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+731%
|
12−14
−731%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+2167%
|
6−7
−2167%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+60%
|
14−16
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+886%
|
7−8
−886%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
This is how HD 7970 and GTS 250M compete in popular games:
- HD 7970 is 950% faster in 900p
- HD 7970 is 232% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 7970 is 4800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, HD 7970 surpassed GTS 250M in all 44 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.74 | 1.24 |
| Recency | 22 December 2011 | 15 June 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 28 Watt |
HD 7970 has a 846.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GTS 250M, on the other hand, has 971.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7970 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7970 is a desktop card while GeForce GTS 250M 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.
