Radeon R7 250X vs R9 M280X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M280X with Radeon R7 250X, including specs and performance data.
R7 250X outperforms R9 M280X by a whopping 179% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 882 | 599 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.63 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 5.08 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Saturn | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 5 February 2015 (10 years ago) | 13 February 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 896 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 61.60 | 38.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.971 TFLOPS | 1.216 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 56 | 40 |
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 size | large | no data |
| Bus support | Not Listed | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 210 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1 x 6-pin |
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 | Not Listed | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 0 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | Not Listed | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 96 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | + | + |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| Mantle | + | - |
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.
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.
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 | 28
−168%
| 75−80
+168%
|
| 4K | 18
−178%
| 50−55
+178%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.32 |
| 4K | no data | 1.98 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Dota 2 | 12
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30
−167%
|
80−85
+167%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
| World of Tanks | 67
−169%
|
180−190
+169%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Dota 2 | 31
−174%
|
85−90
+174%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−162%
|
55−60
+162%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| World of Tanks | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−150%
|
40−45
+150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 19
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−150%
|
40−45
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
This is how R9 M280X and R7 250X compete in popular games:
- R7 250X is 168% faster in 1080p
- R7 250X is 178% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.03 | 5.66 |
| Recency | 5 February 2015 | 13 February 2014 |
R9 M280X has an age advantage of 11 months.
R7 250X, on the other hand, has a 178.8% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon R7 250X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M280X in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M280X is a notebook card while Radeon R7 250X is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
