GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile vs Radeon R7 250E

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250E with GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

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

RTX 4060 Mobile outperforms R7 250E by a whopping 940% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking742105
Place by popularitynot in top-10061
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.10no data
Power efficiency5.6027.86
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameCape VerdeAD107
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date20 December 2013 (12 years ago)3 January 2023 (3 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 cores5123072
Core clock speed800 MHz1545 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1890 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt115 Watt
Texture fill rate25.60181.4
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPS11.61 TFLOPS
ROPs1648
TMUs3296
Tensor Coresno data96
Ray Tracing Coresno data24
L1 Cache128 KB3 MB
L2 Cache256 KB32 MB

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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1125 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s256.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA-8.9
DLSS-+

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 250E 4.00
RTX 4060 Mobile 41.61
+940%

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.

R7 250E 1970
RTX 4060 Mobile 26530
+1247%

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 HD10−12
−1020%
112
+1020%
1440p5−6
−1120%
61
+1120%
4K3−4
−1167%
38
+1167%

Cost per frame, $

1080p10.90no data
1440p21.80no data
4K36.33no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 195
+0%
195
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 123
+0%
123
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 124
+0%
124
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 195
+0%
195
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 99
+0%
99
+0%
Far Cry 5 128
+0%
128
+0%
Fortnite 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 137
+0%
137
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 146
+0%
146
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 84
+0%
84
+0%
Dota 2 164
+0%
164
+0%
Far Cry 5 129
+0%
129
+0%
Fortnite 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 125
+0%
125
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 141
+0%
141
+0%
Metro Exodus 25
+0%
25
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 191
+0%
191
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 77
+0%
77
+0%
Dota 2 156
+0%
156
+0%
Far Cry 5 125
+0%
125
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 101
+0%
101
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 98
+0%
98
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 290−300
+0%
290−300
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 85
+0%
85
+0%
Metro Exodus 59
+0%
59
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 49
+0%
49
+0%
Far Cry 5 98
+0%
98
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 76
+0%
76
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 39
+0%
39
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 76
+0%
76
+0%
Metro Exodus 37
+0%
37
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55
+0%
55
+0%
Valorant 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+0%
19
+0%
Dota 2 126
+0%
126
+0%
Far Cry 5 40
+0%
40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

This is how R7 250E and RTX 4060 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 4060 Mobile is 1020% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 4060 Mobile is 1120% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 4060 Mobile is 1167% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.00 41.61
Recency 20 December 2013 3 January 2023
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 115 Watt

R7 250E has 109.1% lower power consumption.

RTX 4060 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 940.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250E in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250E is a desktop graphics card while GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile is a notebook 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 250E
Radeon R7 250E
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile
GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile

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.


4 25 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 4846 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile 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 RTX 4060 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.