Quadro FX 2800M vs Radeon R7 250
Aggregated performance score
Radeon R7 250 outperforms Quadro FX 2800M by 159% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 760 | 1048 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.10 | 0.05 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | Oland XT | NB10-GLM3 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 1 October 2013 (10 years ago) | 1 December 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | no data |
| Current price | $256 (2.9x MSRP) | $140 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R7 250 has 100% better value for money than FX 2800M.
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 | no data | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.20 | 28.80 |
| Floating-point performance | 716.8 gflops | 288 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon R7 250 and Quadro FX 2800M 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 | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 64 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 |
| 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 |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| 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.
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 Quadro FX 2800M by 159% based on our aggregated 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 Quadro FX 2800M by 158% 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 Quadro FX 2800M by 118% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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
−63.2%
| 31
+63.2%
|
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 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
This is how R7 250 and FX 2800M compete in popular games:
- FX 2800M is 63.2% faster than R7 250 in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Hitman 3, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R7 250 is 400% faster than the FX 2800M.
All in all, in popular games:
- R7 250 is ahead in 25 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.77 | 1.07 |
| Recency | 1 October 2013 | 1 December 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
The Radeon R7 250 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2800M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 250 is a desktop card while Quadro FX 2800M is a mobile workstation 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.
