GeForce GTS 250 vs Radeon R9 290X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 290X and GeForce GTS 250, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 290X outperforms GTS 250 by a whopping 1151% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 299 | 980 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.93 | 0.09 |
| Power efficiency | 4.56 | 0.70 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Hawaii | G92B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 24 October 2013 (11 years ago) | 4 March 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
R9 290X has 5378% better value for money than GTS 250.
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 | 2816 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 738 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 947 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,200 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 176.0 | 44.93 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.632 TFLOPS | 0.3871 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 176 | 64 |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 275 mm | 229 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | 70.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | Two Dual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.0 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
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 | 86
+1333%
| 6−7
−1333%
|
| 4K | 50
+1567%
| 3−4
−1567%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.38
+420%
| 33.17
−420%
|
| 4K | 10.98
+504%
| 66.33
−504%
|
- R9 290X has 420% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 290X has 504% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1167%
|
3−4
−1167%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+1167%
|
6−7
−1167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1167%
|
3−4
−1167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+1286%
|
7−8
−1286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1380%
|
5−6
−1380%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+1567%
|
3−4
−1567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+1260%
|
5−6
−1260%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+1280%
|
10−11
−1280%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+1167%
|
6−7
−1167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 280
+1233%
|
21−24
−1233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1167%
|
3−4
−1167%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+1213%
|
8−9
−1213%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+1286%
|
7−8
−1286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1380%
|
5−6
−1380%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+1567%
|
3−4
−1567%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 67
+1240%
|
5−6
−1240%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+1200%
|
3−4
−1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+1260%
|
5−6
−1260%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75
+1400%
|
5−6
−1400%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+1280%
|
10−11
−1280%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+1167%
|
6−7
−1167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1167%
|
3−4
−1167%
|
| Dota 2 | 136
+1260%
|
10−11
−1260%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1380%
|
5−6
−1380%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+1567%
|
3−4
−1567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 44
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+1280%
|
10−11
−1280%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 95−100
+1286%
|
7−8
−1286%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+1220%
|
10−11
−1220%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+1308%
|
12−14
−1308%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+1350%
|
12−14
−1350%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+1175%
|
4−5
−1175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 52
+1200%
|
4−5
−1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+1175%
|
8−9
−1175%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 84
+1300%
|
6−7
−1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
This is how R9 290X and GTS 250 compete in popular games:
- R9 290X is 1333% faster in 1080p
- R9 290X is 1567% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.27 | 1.54 |
| Recency | 24 October 2013 | 4 March 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 150 Watt |
R9 290X has a 1151.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.
GTS 250, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 290X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
