R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs R7 250

Buy
VS
Buy
Price now 192$
Games supported 58%
R7 250
Radeon R7 250
Buy
  • Interface PCIe 3.0 x8
  • Core clock speed 0
  • Max video memory 2048 MB
  • Memory type DDR3, GDDR5
  • Memory clock speed 1150
  • Maximum resolution
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Buy
  • Interface
  • Core clock speed 720
  • Max video memory
  • Memory type
  • Memory clock speed
  • Maximum resolution
Price now no data
Games supported 58%

General info

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

Place in performance ranking700711
Value for money0.17no data
ArchitectureGCN (2011−2017)GCN (2011−2017)
GPU code nameOland XTKaveri Spectre
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date1 October 2013 (9 years old)14 January 2014 (9 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$89 no data
Current price$192 (2.2x MSRP)no data
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Technical specs

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 cores384384
Core clock speedno data720 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Wattno data
Texture fill rate25.20no data
Floating-point performance716.8 gflopsno data

Size and 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 x8no data
Length168 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsN/Ano data

Memory

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeDDR3, GDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1150 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth72 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Video outputs and ports

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 data
HDMI+no data
DisplayPort support-no data

Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration+no data
CrossFire1no data
Enduro-no data
FreeSync1no data
HD3D-no data
PowerTune-no data
TrueAudio-no data
ZeroCore-no data
DDMA audio+no data

API support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Mantle-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.

R7 250 2.77
+4.1%
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 2.66

R7 250 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 4% in our combined benchmark results.


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: 16%

R7 250 12581
+71.4%
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 7338

R7 250 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 71% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 16%

R7 250 2775
+39.6%
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 1988

R7 250 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 40% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Fire Strike Score

Benchmark coverage: 13%

R7 250 2051
+57.5%
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 1302

R7 250 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 58% in 3DMark Fire Strike Score.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

R7 250 15080
+56.3%
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 9651

R7 250 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 56% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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 seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

R7 250 2145
+52.6%
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 1406

R7 250 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 53% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

R7 250 27
+53.9%
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 18

R7 250 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 54% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.

Mining hashrates

Cryptocurrency mining performance of Radeon R7 250 and Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop). Usually measured in megahashes per second.

Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) 117 Mh/s no data
Ethereum / ETH (DaggerHashimoto) 3 Mh/s no data

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
+26.7%
15
−26.7%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Battlefield 5 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Battlefield 5 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Battlefield 5 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how R7 250 and R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • R7 250 is 26.7% faster than R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R7 250 is 100% faster than the R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop).

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance rating 2.77 2.66
Recency 1 October 2013 14 January 2014

We couldn't decide between Radeon R7 250 and Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop). The differences in performance seem too small.


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

Cast your own vote

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 R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User ratings: view and submit

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


3.6 269 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 19 votes

Rate AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

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