Radeon 760M vs R7 250

Place in the ranking	800	352
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.10	no data
Power efficiency	2.95	69.24
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	Oland	Hawx Point
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	6 December 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$89	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores	384	512
Core clock speed	no data	800 MHz
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	2599 MHz
Number of transistors	950 million	25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	25.20	83.17
Floating-point processing power	0.8064 TFLOPS	5.323 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	24	32
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	8

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 4.0 x8
Length	168 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	N/A	None

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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1150 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	no data
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	Portable Device Dependent
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_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.8
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.1
Vulkan	-	1.3

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 2.75

Radeon 760M 14.90
+442%

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 1059

Radeon 760M 5748
+443%

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.

R7 250 2775

Radeon 760M 9603
+246%

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.

R7 250 12581

Radeon 760M 32985
+162%

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.

R7 250 2145

Radeon 760M 6142
+186%

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.

R7 250 15080

Radeon 760M 41767
+177%

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	20 −55%	31 +55%
1440p	3−4 −533%	19 +533%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.45	no data
1440p	29.67	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6

−500%

30
+500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −2400%	24−27 +2400%
Battlefield 5	4−5 −1150%	50−55 +1150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −343%	30−35 +343%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −380%	24 +380%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −620%	35−40 +620%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −500%	40−45 +500%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −607%	95−100 +607%
Hitman 3	8−9 −263%	27−30 +263%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −267%	75−80 +267%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −1633%	50−55 +1633%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −500%	40−45 +500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −317%	50−55 +317%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −108%	75−80 +108%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −2400%	24−27 +2400%
Battlefield 5	4−5 −1150%	50−55 +1150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −343%	30−35 +343%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −260%	18 +260%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −620%	35−40 +620%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −500%	40−45 +500%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −607%	95−100 +607%
Hitman 3	8−9 −263%	27−30 +263%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −267%	75−80 +267%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −1633%	50−55 +1633%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −500%	40−45 +500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −267%	44 +267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −157%	35−40 +157%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −108%	75−80 +108%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −2400%	24−27 +2400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −343%	30−35 +343%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −620%	35−40 +620%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −607%	95−100 +607%
Hitman 3	8−9 −263%	27−30 +263%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −267%	75−80 +267%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −208%	37 +208%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −64.3%	23 +64.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −108%	75−80 +108%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

−500%

40−45
+500%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −625%	27−30 +625%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −475%	21−24 +475%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −650%	14−16 +650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −700%	16−18 +700%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −500%	18−20 +500%
Hitman 3	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −343%	30−35 +343%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −700%	16−18 +700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 −481%	90−95 +481%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−317%

24−27
+317%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1400%	14−16 +1400%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −450%	10−12 +450%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	20−22
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	6−7

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−250%

14−16
+250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

This is how R7 250 and Radeon 760M compete in popular games:

Radeon 760M is 55% faster in 1080p
Radeon 760M is 533% faster in 1440p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 760M is 2400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Radeon 760M is ahead in 60 tests (86%)
there's a draw in 10 tests (14%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.75	14.90
Recency	8 October 2013	6 December 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	15 Watt

Radeon 760M has a 441.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 760M 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 Radeon 760M is a notebook one.

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