Quadro NVS 210S vs Radeon R7 250

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250 with Quadro NVS 210S, including specs and performance data.

R7 250
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
2.65
+4317%

R7 250 outperforms NVS 210S by a whopping 4317% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking8111478
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.10no data
Power efficiency2.880.40
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameOlandC51
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)22 December 2003 (21 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$89 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores384no data
Core clock speedno data425 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 million75 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt11 Watt
Texture fill rate25.200.85
Floating-point processing power0.8064 TFLOPSno data
ROPs81
TMUs242

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCI
Length168 mmno data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsN/Ano 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1150 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth72 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGANo 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 compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 129.0c (9_3)
Shader Model5.13.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan-N/A

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. 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.

R7 250 2.65
+4317%
NVS 210S 0.06

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.

R7 250 1045
+4443%
NVS 210S 23

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 HD19-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.68no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−12 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 2−3 0−1
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11 0−1
Valorant 2−3 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−12 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Dota 2 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 16−18 0−1
Fortnite 14−16 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 2−3 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8 0−1
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11 0−1
Valorant 2−3 0−1
World of Tanks 45−50
+4800%
1−2
−4800%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−12 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Dota 2 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 16−18 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27 0−1
Valorant 2−3 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
World of Tanks 18−20 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 7−8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 3−4 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 0−1
Valorant 9−10 0−1

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 16−18 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Fortnite 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
Valorant 2−3 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.65 0.06
Recency 8 October 2013 22 December 2003
Chip lithography 28 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 11 Watt

R7 250 has a 4316.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 210S, on the other hand, has 581.8% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 250 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 210S in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250 is a desktop card while Quadro NVS 210S is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 250
Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 210S
Quadro NVS 210S

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 448 votes

Rate Radeon R7 250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 12 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 210S on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.