ATI Radeon IGP 340M vs HD 8250

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12881605
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.01no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Rage 6 (2000−2007)
GPU code nameKalindiRS200
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date23 May 2013 (12 years ago)5 October 2002 (23 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 cores1282
Core clock speed300 MHz183 MHz
Boost clock speed400 MHz180 MHz
Number of transistors1,178 million30 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm180 nm
Power consumption (TDP)8 Wattno data
Texture fill rate3.2000.37
Floating-point processing power0.1024 TFLOPSno data
ROPs42
TMUs82

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).

InterfaceIGPAGP 4x
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared
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)7.0
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.61.4
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

Synthetic benchmarks

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



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 217
+10750%
Samples: 261
ATI IGP 340M 2
Samples: 4

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

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Valorant 27−30
+17.4%
21−24
−17.4%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Metro Exodus 0−1 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Valorant 27−30
+17.4%
21−24
−17.4%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Valorant 27−30
+17.4%
21−24
−17.4%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7 no data

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 no data

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 3−4 0−1

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 8250 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD 8250 performs better in 17 tests (89%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (11%)

Pros & cons summary


Recency 23 May 2013 5 October 2002
Chip lithography 28 nm 180 nm

HD 8250 has an age advantage of 10 years, and a 543% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 8250 and Radeon IGP 340M. We've got no test results to judge.

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
5 2 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 340M 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 Radeon IGP 340M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.