GeForce GT 720M vs Radeon R7 250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 250 with GeForce GT 720M, including specs and performance data.
R7 250 outperforms GT 720M by a whopping 132% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 768 | 1023 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.10 | 0.03 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Oland XT | N14M-GE |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 October 2013 (10 years ago) | 1 April 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R7 250 has 233% better value for money than GT 720M.
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 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1050 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 938 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.20 | 12.13 |
| Floating-point performance | 716.8 gflops | 240.0 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon R7 250 and GeForce GT 720M 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.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 - 4600 MHz | 1800 - 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 73.6 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 | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | no data |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | no data | + |
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.
Radeon R7 250 outperforms GeForce GT 720M by 132% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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 GT 720M by 131% 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 GT 720M by 174% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Radeon R7 250 outperforms GeForce GT 720M by 129% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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%
Radeon R7 250 outperforms GeForce GT 720M by 161% 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%
Radeon R7 250 outperforms GeForce GT 720M by 178% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
Radeon R7 250 outperforms GeForce GT 720M by 136% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.
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
+26.7%
| 15
−26.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−114%
|
30
+114%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+18.8%
|
30−35
−18.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16
+14.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+18.8%
|
30−35
−18.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+18.8%
|
30−35
−18.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
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
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| 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
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how R7 250 and GT 720M compete in popular games:
- R7 250 is 27% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R7 250 is 1300% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 720M is 114% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R7 250 is ahead in 43 tests (91%)
- GT 720M is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.76 | 1.19 |
| Recency | 1 October 2013 | 1 April 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 33 Watt |
R7 250 has a 131.9% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 6 months.
GT 720M, on the other hand, has 97% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 250 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 720M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 250 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 720M 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.
