ATI Radeon Xpress 1250 vs R7 250E
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 250E with Radeon Xpress 1250, including specs and performance data.
R7 250E outperforms Xpress 1250 by a whopping 3830% 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 | 738 | 1510 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.07 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.56 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | R400 (2004−2008) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | RS690 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 20 December 2013 (11 years ago) | 28 February 2007 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 512 | 4 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 120 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 25.60 | 1.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8192 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 4 |
| 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 | no data |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | no data |
| 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 9.0b (9_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.0 |
| 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 23 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.93 | 0.10 |
| Recency | 20 December 2013 | 28 February 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 80 nm |
R7 250E has a 3830% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R7 250E is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Xpress 1250 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 250E is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Xpress 1250 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.
