GeForce 7600 GT vs Radeon R7 250E
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 250E and GeForce 7600 GT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 250E outperforms 7600 GT by a whopping 596% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 753 | 1284 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.07 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 5.60 | 1.08 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | G73 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 20 December 2013 (12 years ago) | 9 March 2006 (20 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R7 250E has 10600% better value for money than 7600 GT.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 560 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 177 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.60 | 6.720 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8192 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 12 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 22.4 GB/s |
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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.97 | 0.57 |
| Recency | 20 December 2013 | 9 March 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 40 Watt |
R7 250E has a 596% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 221% more advanced lithography process.
7600 GT, on the other hand, has 38% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 250E is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7600 GT in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
