Radeon Sky 500 vs R7 250

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250 with Radeon Sky 500, including specs and performance data.

R7 250
2013, $89
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
2.52

Sky 500 outperforms R7 250 by a whopping 348% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking876459
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.10no data
Power efficiency2.995.80
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameOlandPitcairn
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (12 years ago)27 March 2013 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$89 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores3841280
Core clock speedno data950 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 million2,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate25.2076.00
Floating-point processing power0.8064 TFLOPS2.432 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs2480
L1 Cache96 KB320 KB
L2 Cache256 KB512 KB

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 3.0PCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
Length168 mm242 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Form factorno datafull height / full length
Supplementary power connectorsN/A1x 6-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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1150 MHz1200 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s154 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA1x DisplayPort
HDMI+-
DisplayPort countno data1
Dual-link DVI support-+

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 and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan-1.2.131

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

R7 250 2.52
Sky 500 11.29
+348%

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 1053
Samples: 3248
Sky 500 4722
+348%
Samples: 12

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
−347%
85−90
+347%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.68no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−320%
21−24
+320%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 8−9
−338%
35−40
+338%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−320%
21−24
+320%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Fortnite 12−14
−323%
55−60
+323%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−323%
55−60
+323%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−323%
55−60
+323%
Valorant 40−45
−342%
190−200
+342%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 8−9
−338%
35−40
+338%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45−50
−329%
210−220
+329%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−320%
21−24
+320%
Dota 2 24−27
−323%
110−120
+323%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Fortnite 12−14
−323%
55−60
+323%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−323%
55−60
+323%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−323%
55−60
+323%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−344%
40−45
+344%
Valorant 40−45
−342%
190−200
+342%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 8−9
−338%
35−40
+338%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−320%
21−24
+320%
Dota 2 24−27
−323%
110−120
+323%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−323%
55−60
+323%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−323%
55−60
+323%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−344%
40−45
+344%
Valorant 40−45
−342%
190−200
+342%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
−323%
55−60
+323%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
−347%
85−90
+347%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−317%
100−105
+317%
Valorant 21−24
−332%
95−100
+332%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
−320%
21−24
+320%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−333%
65−70
+333%
Valorant 12−14
−317%
50−55
+317%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%

This is how R7 250 and Sky 500 compete in popular games:

  • Sky 500 is 347% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.52 11.29
Recency 8 October 2013 27 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 150 Watt

R7 250 has an age advantage of 6 months, and 100% lower power consumption.

Sky 500, on the other hand, has a 348% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Radeon Sky 500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Sky 500 is a workstation one.

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 Sky 500
Radeon Sky 500

Other comparisons

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.


3.5 508 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 15 votes

Rate Radeon Sky 500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 250 or Radeon Sky 500, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.