Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs R7 250

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

R7 250
2013
2048 MB DDR3, GDDR5
2.77

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms R7 250 by 10% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking760723
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money0.10no data
ArchitectureGCN (2011−2017)GCN (2011−2017)
GPU code nameOland XTKaveri Spectre
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date1 October 2013 (10 years old)14 January 2014 (10 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$89 no data
Current price$256 (2.9x 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 cores384512
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 video RAM 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
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 3.05
+10.1%

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms R7 250 by 10% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


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: 17%

R7 250 2775
+20.5%
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 2302

R7 250 outperforms R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 21% in 3DMark 11 Performance 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 made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R7 250 2145
+32.7%
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 1616

R7 250 outperforms R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 33% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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: 14%

R7 250 15080
+45.8%
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 10341

R7 250 outperforms R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 46% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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
+39.1%
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 20

R7 250 outperforms R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by 39% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.

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
+5.6%
18
−5.6%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Hitman 3 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Hitman 3 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−42.9%
10
+42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+16.7%
6
−16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 1−2
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

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 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+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 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

This is how R7 250 and R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • R7 250 is 5.6% faster than R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R7 250 is 16.7% faster than the R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop).
  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 100% faster than the R7 250.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R7 250 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is ahead in 29 tests (55%)
  • there's a draw in 23 tests (43%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 2.77 3.05
Recency 1 October 2013 14 January 2014

The Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250 in performance tests.


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

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 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 512 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

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


3.6 406 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 14 votes

Rate AMD Radeon R7 512 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.