GeForce GT 545 vs Radeon R7 250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 250 and GeForce GT 545, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GT 545 outperforms R7 250 by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 846 | 829 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.10 | 0.39 |
| Power efficiency | 2.87 | 2.82 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Oland | GF116 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) | 14 May 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GT 545 has 290% better value for money than R7 250.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 cores | 384 | 144 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 720 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.20 | 17.28 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8064 TFLOPS | 0.4147 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 24 |
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 support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 145 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | N/A | 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1536 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 38.4 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 2.1 |
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.
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.
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 | 19
+5.6%
| 18−21
−5.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.68
+76.7%
| 8.28
−76.7%
|
- R7 250 has 77% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−4.7%
|
45−50
+4.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−2%
|
50−55
+2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−4.7%
|
45−50
+4.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−4.7%
|
45−50
+4.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how R7 250 and GT 545 compete in popular games:
- R7 250 is 6% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.64 | 2.79 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 14 May 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1536 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 70 Watt |
R7 250 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 545, on the other hand, has a 5.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 7.1% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R7 250 and GeForce GT 545.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
