RTX A2000 Mobile vs Radeon R7 250X

#ad 
Buy
Radeon HD 7730 Radeon HD 7750 Radeon HD 7770 Radeon HD 8730 OEM Radeon HD 8760 OEM Radeon R7 250E Radeon R7 250X Radeon R7 250XE Radeon R7 350 Radeon R7 450 OEM Radeon R9 255 OEM Radeon RX 540 OEM
VS
RTX A1000 Embedded RTX A1000 Mobile RTX A1000 Mobile 6 GB RTX A2000 Embedded RTX A2000 Max-Q RTX A2000 Mobile RTX A3000 Mobile RTX A3000 Mobile 12 GB RTX A4000 Mobile RTX A4500 Mobile RTX A5000 Mobile RTX A5500 Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250X with RTX A2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

R7 250X
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 80 Watt
5.08

RTX A2000 Mobile outperforms R7 250X by a whopping 333% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

R7 250X R7 250X
RTX A2000 Mobile RTX A2000

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking609228
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.63no data
Power efficiency5.0418.38
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameCape VerdeGA106
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (11 years ago)12 April 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores6402560
Core clock speedno data893 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1358 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million13,250 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt95 Watt
Texture fill rate38.00108.6
Floating-point processing power1.216 TFLOPS6.953 TFLOPS
ROPs1648
TMUs4080
Tensor Coresno data80
Ray Tracing Coresno data20

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinno 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 amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1625 MHz1375 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/s176.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan-1.2
CUDA-8.6
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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 250X 5.08
RTX A2000 Mobile 22.01
+333%
  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

R7 250X 2268
RTX A2000 Mobile 9836
+334%

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 250X 2860
RTX A2000 Mobile 13157
+360%

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 HD18−20
−333%
78
+333%
1440p9−10
−367%
42
+367%
4K8−9
−375%
38
+375%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.50no data
1440p11.00no data
4K12.38no data

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 74
+0%
74
+0%
Atomic Heart 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 62
+0%
62
+0%
Far Cry 5 96
+0%
96
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Atomic Heart 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50
+0%
50
+0%
Dota 2 145
+0%
145
+0%
Far Cry 5 88
+0%
88
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 106
+0%
106
+0%
Metro Exodus 44
+0%
44
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 96
+0%
96
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 41
+0%
41
+0%
Dota 2 129
+0%
129
+0%
Far Cry 5 83
+0%
83
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50
+0%
50
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 50
+0%
50
+0%
Metro Exodus 27
+0%
27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+0%
25
+0%
Far Cry 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Atomic Heart 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 44
+0%
44
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33
+0%
33
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 72
+0%
72
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

This is how R7 250X and RTX A2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX A2000 Mobile is 333% faster in 1080p
  • RTX A2000 Mobile is 367% faster in 1440p
  • RTX A2000 Mobile is 375% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 5.08 22.01
Recency 13 February 2014 12 April 2021
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 95 Watt

R7 250X has 18.8% lower power consumption.

RTX A2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 333.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250X in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250X is a desktop card while RTX A2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation 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 250X
Radeon R7 250X
NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile
RTX A2000
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

R7 250X Radeon R7 250X
vs
GTX 460 GeForce GTX 460
RTX A2000 Mobile RTX A2000 Mobile
vs
Quadro P4200 Quadro P4200
R7 250X Radeon R7 250X
vs
ATI HD 5970 Radeon HD 5970
R5 M250 AMD Radeon R5 M250
vs
R7 350X OEM R7 350X OEM
RTX 4070 AD103 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103
vs
R9 360 OEM R9 360 OEM
UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) Intel UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
vs
R9 370 R9 370
RTX 3090 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090
vs
R5 230 R5 230
RTX 4090 Mobile NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile
vs
R9 280 R9 280
GeForce MX110 NVIDIA GeForce MX110
vs
R7 265 R7 265
A100 PCIe 80 GB NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB
vs
R5 235X OEM R5 235X OEM
ATI 9800 XXL ATI Radeon 9800 XXL
vs
R7 250E R7 250E
RTX 5090 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090
vs
R9 270 R9 270
NX-SoC NVIDIA NX SoC
vs
R9 290 R9 290

Community ratings

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

3.9
170 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8
104 votes

Rate RTX A2000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 250X or RTX A2000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.