GeForce MX250 vs Radeon HD 8650M
Aggregated performance score
GeForce MX250 outperforms Radeon HD 8650M by 229% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 866 | 545 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.12 | 2.36 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | no data | N17S-G2 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2013 (11 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 1867% better value for money than HD 8650M.
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 | 384 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 1518 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1582 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 900 Million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 10/25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 24.91 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon HD 8650M 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 | no data | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4500 MHz | 7000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 data | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | no data | 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.
GeForce MX250 outperforms Radeon HD 8650M by 229% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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%
GeForce MX250 outperforms Radeon HD 8650M by 249% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce MX250 outperforms Radeon HD 8650M by 187% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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 HD | 6−7
−283%
| 23
+283%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−250%
|
14
+250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−1800%
|
19
+1800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1100%
|
24
+1100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
−130%
|
23
+130%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−175%
|
11
+175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1800%
|
19
+1800%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−2000%
|
21
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−933%
|
31
+933%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−250%
|
14
+250%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−125%
|
18
+125%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−1200%
|
13
+1200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−850%
|
19
+850%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
−60%
|
16
+60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1600%
|
17
+1600%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−1700%
|
18
+1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−700%
|
24
+700%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−133%
|
7
+133%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−200%
|
6
+200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−133%
|
7
+133%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−100%
|
8
+100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−37.5%
|
11
+37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−320%
|
21
+320%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−600%
|
7
+600%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−600%
|
14
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16
+1500%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−1600%
|
17
+1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−433%
|
16
+433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−140%
|
12
+140%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| 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 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| 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 8650M and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX250 is 283% faster than HD 8650M in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 2000% faster than the HD 8650M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GeForce MX250 surpassed HD 8650M in all 46 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.90 | 6.26 |
| Recency | 7 January 2013 | 20 February 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
The GeForce MX250 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8650M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
