Radeon HD 7290 vs R7 250

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking795not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.10no data
Power efficiency2.92no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameOlandLoveland
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)6 June 2012 (12 years 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 cores38480
Core clock speedno data400 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz400 MHz
Number of transistors950 million450 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate25.203.200
Floating-point processing power0.8064 TFLOPS0.064 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs248

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 x8IGP
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-+

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 compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.2 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan-N/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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 1058
+853%
HD 7290 111

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
+1247%
HD 7290 206

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
+2256%
HD 7290 534

Pros & cons summary


Recency 8 October 2013 6 June 2012
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 18 Watt

R7 250 has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

HD 7290, on the other hand, has 316.7% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R7 250 and Radeon HD 7290. We've got no test results to judge.


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
AMD Radeon HD 7290
Radeon HD 7290

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.6 433 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 21 vote

Rate Radeon HD 7290 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.