Quadro T1000 Mobile vs Radeon HD 8250

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 8250 with Quadro T1000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

HD 8250
2013
8 Watt
0.51

T1000 Mobile outperforms HD 8250 by a whopping 2967% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1290378
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency4.9024.04
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameKalindiTU117
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date23 May 2013 (12 years ago)27 May 2019 (6 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 cores128768
Core clock speed300 MHz1395 MHz
Boost clock speed400 MHz1455 MHz
Number of transistors1,178 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)8 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate3.20069.84
Floating-point processing power0.1024 TFLOPS2.235 TFLOPS
ROPs432
TMUs848
L1 Cacheno data768 KB
L2 Cacheno data1024 KB

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
InterfaceIGPPCIe 3.0 x16

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data128.0 GB/s
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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA-7.5

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 8250 0.51
T1000 Mobile 15.64
+2967%

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.

HD 8250 212
Samples: 260
T1000 Mobile 6540
+2985%

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 8250 423
T1000 Mobile 11377
+2593%

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 8250 1317
T1000 Mobile 31509
+2292%

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.

HD 8250 254
T1000 Mobile 8727
+3343%

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 8250 1965
T1000 Mobile 53629
+2629%

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

HD 8250 4
T1000 Mobile 110
+2881%

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 HD2−3
−3050%
63
+3050%
4K1−2
−4700%
48
+4700%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−3200%
30−35
+3200%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−500%
30−33
+500%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−3200%
30−35
+3200%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−1550%
65−70
+1550%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−500%
30−33
+500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−638%
55−60
+638%
Valorant 27−30
−374%
120−130
+374%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−1118%
200−210
+1118%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−3200%
30−35
+3200%
Dota 2 10−12
−936%
114
+936%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−1550%
65−70
+1550%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−500%
30−33
+500%
Metro Exodus 0−1 34
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−638%
55−60
+638%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1160%
63
+1160%
Valorant 27−30
−374%
120−130
+374%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−3200%
30−35
+3200%
Dota 2 10−12
−873%
107
+873%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−1550%
65−70
+1550%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−500%
30−33
+500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−638%
55−60
+638%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−600%
35
+600%
Valorant 27−30
−374%
120−130
+374%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−933%
30−35
+933%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
−5750%
110−120
+5750%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−2980%
150−160
+2980%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−1850%
35−40
+1850%
Hogwarts Legacy 0−1 16−18
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−1100%
24−27
+1100%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 35−40

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−107%
27−30
+107%
Valorant 3−4
−2833%
85−90
+2833%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−650%
14−16
+650%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 60
+0%
60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry 5 62
+0%
62
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry 5 57
+0%
57
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 68
+0%
68
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 47
+0%
47
+0%
Far Cry 5 53
+0%
53
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

1440p
High

Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 48
+0%
48
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

This is how HD 8250 and T1000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • T1000 Mobile is 3050% faster in 1080p
  • T1000 Mobile is 4700% faster in 4K

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

  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the T1000 Mobile is 5750% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • T1000 Mobile performs better in 31 tests (49%)
  • there's a draw in 32 tests (51%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.51 15.64
Recency 23 May 2013 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 8 Watt 50 Watt

HD 8250 has 525% lower power consumption.

T1000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 2966.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T1000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8250 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8250 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro T1000 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 8250
Radeon HD 8250
NVIDIA Quadro T1000 Mobile
Quadro T1000 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.


2.3 18 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 201 votes

Rate Quadro T1000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 8250 or Quadro T1000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.