GeForce MX250 vs Radeon R9 Fury

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 Fury with GeForce MX250, including specs and performance data.

R9 Fury
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 275 Watt
24.80
+298%

R9 Fury outperforms MX250 by a whopping 298% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking230589
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.16no data
Power efficiency6.1942.73
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameFijiGP108B
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date10 July 2015 (9 years ago)20 February 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 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 cores3584384
Compute units56no data
Core clock speedno data937 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1038 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate224.024.91
Floating-point processing power7.168 TFLOPS0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs22424

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 3.0 x4
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors​2x 8-pinNone
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s48.06 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.7 (6.4)
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan+1.3
Mantle+-
CUDA-6.1

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.

R9 Fury 24.80
+298%
GeForce MX250 6.23

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
    • 3DMark Vantage Performance
    • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
    • 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

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.

R9 Fury 9555
+298%
GeForce MX250 2399

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

R9 Fury 17543
+279%
GeForce MX250 4633

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

R9 Fury 42039
+155%
GeForce MX250 16488

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.

R9 Fury 14580
+298%
GeForce MX250 3660

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

R9 Fury 80439
+273%
GeForce MX250 21545

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 HD90
+291%
23
−291%
1440p106
+342%
24−27
−342%
4K48
+300%
12−14
−300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.10no data
1440p5.18no data
4K11.44no 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
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
Atomic Heart 60−65
+137%
27
−137%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+254%
12−14
−254%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+257%
14
−257%
Atomic Heart 60−65
+220%
20
−220%
Battlefield 5 90−95
+288%
24
−288%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+254%
12−14
−254%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+355%
11
−355%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+311%
19
−311%
Fortnite 110−120
+111%
55
−111%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+200%
31
−200%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+313%
16
−313%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+221%
28
−221%
Valorant 160−170
+37.3%
118
−37.3%
Atomic Heart 60−65
+814%
7
−814%
Battlefield 5 90−95
+389%
19
−389%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+820%
5
−820%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 268
+173%
95−100
−173%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+317%
12−14
−317%
Dota 2 120−130
+87.5%
64
−87.5%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+359%
17
−359%
Fortnite 95
+280%
25
−280%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+288%
24
−288%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+408%
12−14
−408%
Grand Theft Auto V 85−90
+204%
28
−204%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+629%
7
−629%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+291%
23
−291%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 91
+333%
21
−333%
Valorant 160−170
+40.9%
115
−40.9%
Battlefield 5 90−95
+564%
14
−564%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+254%
12−14
−254%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+317%
12−14
−317%
Dota 2 130
+128%
57
−128%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+388%
16
−388%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+481%
16
−481%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+408%
12−14
−408%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50
+163%
19
−163%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46
+283%
12
−283%
Valorant 160−170
+142%
65−70
−142%
Fortnite 72
+227%
22
−227%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 158
+251%
45−50
−251%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+500%
7−8
−500%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+520%
5−6
−520%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+373%
35−40
−373%
Valorant 200−210
+205%
65−70
−205%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+622%
9−10
−622%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+382%
10−12
−382%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+329%
14−16
−329%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+367%
9−10
−367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+333%
9−10
−333%
Fortnite 55−60
+358%
12−14
−358%
Atomic Heart 18−20
+280%
5−6
−280%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 109
+304%
27−30
−304%
Grand Theft Auto V 47
+176%
16−18
−176%
Metro Exodus 20−22 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 36
+1100%
3−4
−1100%
Valorant 130−140
+350%
30−33
−350%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+800%
4−5
−800%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Dota 2 102
+386%
21−24
−386%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+356%
9−10
−356%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20
+233%
6−7
−233%
Fortnite 25
+317%
6−7
−317%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how R9 Fury and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

  • R9 Fury is 291% faster in 1080p
  • R9 Fury is 342% faster in 1440p
  • R9 Fury is 300% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 Fury is 1100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 Fury is ahead in 65 tests (98%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.80 6.23
Recency 10 July 2015 20 February 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 10 Watt

R9 Fury has a 298.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX250, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 2650% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 Fury is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX250 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 Fury is a desktop card while GeForce MX250 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 R9 Fury
Radeon R9 Fury
NVIDIA GeForce MX250
GeForce MX250

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.


3.7
178 votes

Rate Radeon R9 Fury on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6
1582 votes

Rate GeForce MX250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 Fury or GeForce MX250, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.