GeForce G210M vs Radeon R7 250
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 764 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.10 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | Oland XT | N10M-GS |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 1 October 2013 (10 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | no data |
| Current price | $256 (2.9x MSRP) | $43 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 16 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 16 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 14 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.20 | 5.000 |
| Floating-point performance | 716.8 gflops | 48 gflops |
| Gigaflops | no data | 72 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon R7 250 and GeForce G210M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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.
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | N/A | no data |
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 | DDR3, GDDR5 | GDDR2, GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | Up to 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | Up to 500 (DDR2), Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 12.8 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | Dual Link DVIDisplayPortHDMISingle Link DVIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | - | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | no data |
| CrossFire | 1 | no data |
| Enduro | - | no data |
| FreeSync | 1 | no data |
| HD3D | - | no data |
| PowerTune | - | no data |
| TrueAudio | - | no data |
| ZeroCore | - | no data |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | no data | N/A |
| Mantle | - | no data |
| CUDA | no data | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Radeon R7 250 outperforms GeForce G210M by 822% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Radeon R7 250 outperforms GeForce G210M by 1132% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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%
Radeon R7 250 outperforms GeForce G210M by 735% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 October 2013 | 15 June 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 14 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Radeon R7 250 and GeForce G210M. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Radeon R7 250 is a desktop card while GeForce G210M is a notebook one.
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.
