Quadro RTX 6000 vs Radeon R7 250

Place in the ranking	808	67
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.10	5.66
Power efficiency	2.89	12.88
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Oland	TU102
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	13 August 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$89	$6,299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 6000 has 5560% better value for money than R7 250.

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	4608
Core clock speed	no data	1440 MHz
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	1770 MHz
Number of transistors	950 million	18,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	260 Watt
Texture fill rate	25.20	509.8
Floating-point processing power	0.8064 TFLOPS	16.31 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	96
TMUs	24	288
Tensor Cores	no data	576
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	72

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 support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	168 mm	267 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	N/A	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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	24 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	1150 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	672.0 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	4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
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 compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	-	1.2.131
CUDA	-	7.5

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 2.72

RTX 6000 48.55
+1685%

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 1047

RTX 6000 18660
+1682%

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

−1479%

300−350
+1479%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.68

+348%

21.00
−348%

R7 250 has 348% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −1650%	140−150 +1650%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −1614%	120−130 +1614%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −1567%	100−105 +1567%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −1650%	140−150 +1650%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −1614%	120−130 +1614%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1669%	230−240 +1669%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −1600%	85−90 +1600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −1600%	170−180 +1600%
Valorant	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −1567%	100−105 +1567%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −1650%	140−150 +1650%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −1614%	120−130 +1614%
Dota 2	7−8 −1614%	120−130 +1614%
Far Cry 5	16−18 −1650%	280−290 +1650%
Fortnite	14−16 −1633%	260−270 +1633%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1669%	230−240 +1669%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Grand Theft Auto V	7−8 −1614%	120−130 +1614%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −1600%	85−90 +1600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 −1500%	400−450 +1500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −1600%	170−180 +1600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −1600%	170−180 +1600%
Valorant	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
World of Tanks	45−50 −1635%	850−900 +1635%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −1567%	100−105 +1567%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −1650%	140−150 +1650%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −1614%	120−130 +1614%
Dota 2	7−8 −1614%	120−130 +1614%
Far Cry 5	16−18 −1650%	280−290 +1650%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1669%	230−240 +1669%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 −1500%	400−450 +1500%
Valorant	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	1−2 −1500%	16−18 +1500%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 −1500%	16−18 +1500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	18−20 −1479%	300−310 +1479%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
World of Tanks	18−20 −1567%	300−310 +1567%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −1674%	550−600 +1674%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1650%	70−75 +1650%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −1614%	120−130 +1614%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −1500%	16−18 +1500%
Forza Horizon 5	3−4 −1567%	50−55 +1567%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 −1567%	100−105 +1567%
Valorant	9−10 −1678%	160−170 +1678%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −1650%	280−290 +1650%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −1633%	260−270 +1633%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −1650%	140−150 +1650%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −1500%	16−18 +1500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −1633%	260−270 +1633%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Dota 2	16−18 −1650%	280−290 +1650%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Fortnite	1−2 −1500%	16−18 +1500%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	1−2 −1500%	16−18 +1500%
Valorant	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%

This is how R7 250 and RTX 6000 compete in popular games:

RTX 6000 is 1479% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.72	48.55
Recency	8 October 2013	13 August 2018
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	24 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	260 Watt

R7 250 has 246.7% lower power consumption.

RTX 6000, on the other hand, has a 1684.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250 is a desktop card while Quadro RTX 6000 is a workstation one.

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