GeForce GTS 360M vs Radeon R7 250E

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD 7730 HD 7750 HD 7770 HD 8730 OEM HD 8740 OEM HD 8760 OEM R7 250E R7 250X R7 350 R7 350 640SP R7 450 OEM R9 255 OEM
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
310M 315M 320M G105M G210M GT 230M GT 240M GT 325M GT 330M GT 335M GTS 360M ION 2

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250E with GeForce GTS 360M, including specs and performance data.

R7 250E
2013, $109
1 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
4.00
+165%

R7 250E outperforms GTS 360M by a whopping 165% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R7 250E R7 250E
GTS 360M GTS 360M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7421020
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.10no data
Power efficiency5.603.06
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameCape VerdeGT215
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date20 December 2013 (12 years ago)7 January 2010 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 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 cores51296
Core clock speed800 MHz550 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million727 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt38 Watt
Texture fill rate25.6017.60
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPS0.2757 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data413
ROPs168
TMUs3232
L1 Cache128 KBno data
L2 Cache256 KB64 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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-II
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
SLI options-+
MXM Typeno dataMXM 3.0 Type-B

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 amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1125 MHzUp to 2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s57.6 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 DisplayPortSingle Link DVILVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPortVGA
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

Power managementno data8.0

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-+

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:

900p45−50
+150%
18
−150%
Full HD60−65
+161%
23
−161%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.82no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how R7 250E and GTS 360M compete in popular games:

  • R7 250E is 150% faster in 900p
  • R7 250E is 161% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 46 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 4.00 1.51
Recency 20 December 2013 7 January 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 38 Watt

R7 250E has a 165% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

GTS 360M, on the other hand, has 45% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 250E is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 360M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250E is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTS 360M is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

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

R7 250E Radeon R7 250E
vs
GTX 460 768MB GeForce GTX 460 768MB
GTS 360M GeForce GTS 360M
vs
HD 7640G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics Radeon HD 7640G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics
R7 250E Radeon R7 250E
vs
GTS 450 Rev. 2 GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 2
R9 260 OEM Radeon R9 260 OEM
vs
Go 7950 GTX MXM-IV Go 7950 GTX MXM-IV
R7 250E Radeon R7 250E
vs
R5 (Kaveri) R5 (Kaveri)
R7 250E Radeon R7 250E
vs
HD 7590M HD 7590M
R7 250E Radeon R7 250E
vs
FX 3800M FX 3800M
R7 250E Radeon R7 250E
vs
GTX 280M GTX 280M
R7 250E Radeon R7 250E
vs
FirePro M3900 FirePro M3900
R7 250E Radeon R7 250E
vs
G 103M G 103M
R7 250E Radeon R7 250E
vs
GTX 1080 11Gbps GTX 1080 11Gbps
R7 250E Radeon R7 250E
vs
Radeon E6760 Radeon E6760
R7 250E Radeon R7 250E
vs
ATI All-In-Wonder X800 All-In-Wonder X800

Community ratings

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

4 25 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 33 votes

Rate GeForce GTS 360M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 250E or GeForce GTS 360M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.