GeForce MX250 vs Radeon R9 M385

Place in the ranking	607	573
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	no data	43.28
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Strato	GP108B
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	5 May 2015 (9 years ago)	20 February 2019 (5 years ago)

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	384
Core clock speed	900 MHz	937 MHz
Boost clock speed	1100 MHz	1038 MHz
Number of transistors	2,080 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	56.00	24.91
Floating-point processing power	1.792 TFLOPS	0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	56	24

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	medium sized	large
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x4
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	76.8 GB/s	48.06 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 Connectors	No outputs	Portable Device Dependent
Eyefinity	+	-

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
DualGraphics	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-
Switchable graphics	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	6.7 (6.4)
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	Not Listed	3.0
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R9 M385 5.34

GeForce MX250 6.25
+17%

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 M385 2060

GeForce MX250 2411
+17%

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

18−20

−22.2%

22
+22.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

9−10

−55.6%

14
+55.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 −35.7%	19 +35.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 −117%	13 +117%
Battlefield 5	14−16 −50%	21 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 −63.6%	18 +63.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −22.2%	11 +22.2%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −83.3%	22 +83.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 −80%	27 +80%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −35.3%	46 +35.3%
Hitman 3	10−12 −45.5%	16 +45.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −247%	118 +247%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −92.3%	25 +92.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −100%	28 +100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 −84.2%	35 +84.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −58.3%	76 +58.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 −71.4%	24 +71.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
Battlefield 5	14−16 −21.4%	17 +21.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 −54.5%	17 +54.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −58.3%	19 +58.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 −13.3%	17 +13.3%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −26.5%	43 +26.5%
Hitman 3	10−12 −45.5%	16 +45.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −238%	115 +238%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −46.2%	19 +46.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −14.3%	16 +14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 −15.8%	22 +15.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −11.1%	20−22 +11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −47.9%	71 +47.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +100%	7 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 −9.1%	12 +9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −8.3%	13 +8.3%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +113%	16 −113%
Hitman 3	10−12 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +113%	16 −113%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +18.8%	16 −18.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +50%	12 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −6.3%	50−55 +6.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

−28.6%

18
+28.6%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	1−2
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −53.8%	20−22 +53.8%
Hitman 3	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −16.7%	14−16 +16.7%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −17.6%	40−45 +17.6%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

−10%

10−12
+10%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −60%	16−18 +60%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−16.7%

7−8
+16.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

This is how R9 M385 and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX250 is 22% faster in 1080p

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 M385 is 113% faster.
in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 247% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R9 M385 is ahead in 5 tests (7%)
GeForce MX250 is ahead in 60 tests (86%)
there's a draw in 5 tests (7%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.34	6.25
Recency	5 May 2015	20 February 2019
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm

R9 M385 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX250, on the other hand, has a 17% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce MX250 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M385 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.