GeForce 7600 GS vs Radeon R7 250

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250 and GeForce 7600 GS, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 250
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
2.74
+568%

R7 250 outperforms 7600 GS by a whopping 568% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8031253
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.10no data
Power efficiency2.891.04
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameOlandG73
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)22 March 2006 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$89 $84.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores384no data
Core clock speedno data400 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 million177 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt27 Watt
Texture fill rate25.204.800
Floating-point processing power0.8064 TFLOPSno data
ROPs88
TMUs2412

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 1.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsN/ANone

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 typeGDDR5DDR2
Maximum RAM amount2 GB256 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1150 MHz400 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s12.8 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 129.0c (9_3)
Shader Model5.13.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan-N/A

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. 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.

R7 250 2.74
+568%
7600 GS 0.41

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.

R7 250 1054
+571%
7600 GS 157

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 HD21
+600%
3−4
−600%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.2428.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1

This is how R7 250 and 7600 GS compete in popular games:

  • R7 250 is 600% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.74 0.41
Recency 8 October 2013 22 March 2006
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 27 Watt

R7 250 has a 568.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

7600 GS, on the other hand, has 177.8% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 250 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7600 GS 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 R7 250
Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS
GeForce 7600 GS

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.


3.6 441 vote

Rate Radeon R7 250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 103 votes

Rate GeForce 7600 GS 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.