GeForce GTS 250M vs Radeon HD 8650M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 8650M and GeForce GTS 250M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD 8650M
2013
2 GB GDDR5
2.04
+41.7%

HD 8650M outperforms GTS 250M by a considerable 42% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking883998
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data3.53
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameno dataGT215
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date7 January 2013 (11 years ago)15 June 2009 (15 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 cores38496
Core clock speed650 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors900 Million727 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data28 Watt
Texture fill rateno data16.00
Floating-point processing powerno data0.24 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data360
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data32

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 sizemedium sizedlarge
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
SLI options-+
MXM Typeno dataMXM 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed4500 MHzUp to 2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data51.2 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 Connectorsno dataHDMIVGALVDSSingle Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVI
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power managementno data8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.111.1 (10_1)
Shader Modelno data4.1
OpenGLno data2.1
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-+

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 HD35−40
+25%
28
−25%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+6.1%
30−35
−6.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+6.1%
30−35
−6.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+6.1%
30−35
−6.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how HD 8650M and GTS 250M compete in popular games:

  • HD 8650M is 25% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 8650M is 133% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD 8650M is ahead in 34 tests (69%)
  • there's a draw in 15 tests (31%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.04 1.44
Recency 7 January 2013 15 June 2009
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm

HD 8650M has a 41.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon HD 8650M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 8650M
Radeon HD 8650M
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250M
GeForce GTS 250M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.7 11 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8650M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 7 votes

Rate GeForce GTS 250M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.