GeForce GT 650M SLI vs Radeon R7 250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 250 with GeForce GT 650M SLI, including specs and performance data.
650M SLI outperforms R7 250 by an impressive 85% 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 | 875 | 694 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.10 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.98 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Oland | N13E-GE |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (12 years ago) | 22 March 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 790 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 835 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 25.20 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8064 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 24 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
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 size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2x2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 2x 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | 4000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | no data |
| 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 |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
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:
| 900p | 40−45
−97.5%
| 79
+97.5%
|
| Full HD | 19
−163%
| 50
+163%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.68 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−138%
|
18−20
+138%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−115%
|
27−30
+115%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−69.2%
|
21−24
+69.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−117%
|
12−14
+117%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−37.2%
|
55−60
+37.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−138%
|
18−20
+138%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−184%
|
139
+184%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−57.7%
|
40−45
+57.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−115%
|
27−30
+115%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−69.2%
|
21−24
+69.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−117%
|
12−14
+117%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−150%
|
14−16
+150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−37.2%
|
55−60
+37.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−138%
|
18−20
+138%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−57.7%
|
40−45
+57.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−69.2%
|
21−24
+69.2%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−37.2%
|
55−60
+37.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−115%
|
27−30
+115%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−89.5%
|
35−40
+89.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−45.8%
|
35−40
+45.8%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−132%
|
50−55
+132%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−91.7%
|
21−24
+91.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how R7 250 and GT 650M SLI compete in popular games:
- GT 650M SLI is 98% faster in 900p
- GT 650M SLI is 163% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 650M SLI is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 650M SLI performs better in 55 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.52 | 4.66 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 22 March 2012 |
R7 250 has an age advantage of 1 year.
GT 650M SLI, on the other hand, has a 84.9% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GT 650M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 250 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GT 650M SLI is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
