GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile vs Radeon R7 250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 250 with GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 Ti Mobile outperforms R7 250 by a whopping 858% 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 | 876 | 263 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 74 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.10 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.99 | 24.77 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Oland | GA106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (12 years ago) | 11 May 2021 (5 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 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 735 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 1035 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 13,250 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.20 | 82.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8064 TFLOPS | 5.299 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 48 |
| TMUs | 24 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 2.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 2 MB |
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 | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 outputs |
| 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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
−295%
| 75
+295%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−950%
| 42
+950%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−1250%
| 27
+1250%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.68 | no data |
| 1440p | 22.25 | no data |
| 4K | 44.50 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1886%
|
130−140
+1886%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1140%
|
62
+1140%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 3−4
−2400%
|
75
+2400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1250%
|
108
+1250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1886%
|
130−140
+1886%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1080%
|
59
+1080%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1029%
|
79
+1029%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−831%
|
120−130
+831%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−646%
|
95−100
+646%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−1467%
|
94
+1467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−646%
|
95−100
+646%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−293%
|
160−170
+293%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1125%
|
98
+1125%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1886%
|
130−140
+1886%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−431%
|
260−270
+431%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−800%
|
45
+800%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−354%
|
118
+354%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−957%
|
74
+957%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−831%
|
120−130
+831%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−646%
|
95−100
+646%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−1300%
|
84
+1300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−1467%
|
94
+1467%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−1325%
|
57
+1325%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−646%
|
95−100
+646%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−922%
|
92
+922%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−293%
|
160−170
+293%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1013%
|
89
+1013%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−700%
|
40
+700%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−335%
|
113
+335%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−871%
|
68
+871%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−646%
|
95−100
+646%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−646%
|
95−100
+646%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−456%
|
50
+456%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−160%
|
112
+160%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−831%
|
120−130
+831%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−783%
|
50−55
+783%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−821%
|
170−180
+821%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 34 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−629%
|
170−180
+629%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−836%
|
200−210
+836%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2100%
|
22
+2100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1150%
|
50
+1150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−950%
|
60−65
+950%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−900%
|
40−45
+900%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1080%
|
55−60
+1080%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−193%
|
44
+193%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−1108%
|
140−150
+1108%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 10 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−671%
|
54
+671%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2050%
|
40−45
+2050%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−767%
|
24−27
+767%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−800%
|
27−30
+800%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
This is how R7 250 and RTX 3050 Ti Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 295% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 950% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 1250% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Resident Evil 4 Remake, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 2400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3050 Ti Mobile performs better in 51 tests (88%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (12%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.52 | 24.13 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 11 May 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
RTX 3050 Ti Mobile has a 858% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile 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 RTX 3050 Ti Mobile 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.
