Radeon R7 250E vs R7 250
Aggregated performance score
R7 250E outperforms R7 250 by 55% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 760 | 634 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.10 | 0.11 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Oland XT | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 1 October 2013 (10 years ago) | 20 December 2013 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | $109 |
| Current price | $256 (2.9x MSRP) | $599 (5.5x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R7 250E has 10% better value for money than R7 250.
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 cores | 384 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.20 | 25.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 716.8 gflops | 819.2 gflops |
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 support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | N/A | None |
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 type | DDR3, GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | 4500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | + |
| 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 |
| CrossFire | 1 | no data |
| Enduro | - | no data |
| FreeSync | 1 | no 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.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1.2.131 |
| 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 250E outperforms R7 250 by 55% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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 outperforms R7 250E by 9% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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 HD | 19
−42.1%
| 27−30
+42.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| 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
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| 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
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
This is how R7 250 and R7 250E compete in popular games:
- R7 250E is 42.1% faster than R7 250 in 1080p
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 2.77 | 4.28 |
| Recency | 1 October 2013 | 20 December 2013 |
| Cost | $89 | $109 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 55 Watt |
The Radeon R7 250E 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.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
