GeForce MX250 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

Place in the ranking	481	579
Place by popularity	34	not in top-100
Power efficiency	41.32	42.74
Architecture	Vega (2017−2020)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Vega	GP108B
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	7 January 2020 (4 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	512	384
Core clock speed	no data	937 MHz
Boost clock speed	2100 MHz	1038 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	24.91
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	16
TMUs	no data	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	no data	large
Interface	no data	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	no data	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	no data	2 GB
Memory bus width	no data	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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 data

Portable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12_1	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	no data	6.7 (6.4)
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	3.0
Vulkan	-	1.3
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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 9.05
+45%

GeForce MX250 6.24

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 5891
+27.1%

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 22428
+36%

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 3743
+2.3%

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 27084
+25.7%

GeForce MX250 21545

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 299071
+27%

GeForce MX250 235421

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 1163
+5.4%

GeForce MX250 1103

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	22 +0%	22 +0%
1440p	16 +60%	10−12 −60%
4K	9 +50%	6−7 −50%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

19
+35.7%

−35.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +15.8%	19 −15.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	20 +53.8%	13 −53.8%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +33.3%	21 −33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +5.6%	18 −5.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 +27.3%	11 −27.3%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −4.8%	22 +4.8%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 −3.8%	27 +3.8%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +32.6%	46 −32.6%
Hitman 3	15 −6.7%	16 +6.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 −131%	118 +131%
Metro Exodus	35 +40%	25 −40%
Red Dead Redemption 2	33 +17.9%	28 −17.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	36 +2.9%	35 −2.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −26.7%	76 +26.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 −9.1%	24 +9.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16 +100%	8−9 −100%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +64.7%	17 −64.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +11.8%	17 −11.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +10.5%	19 −10.5%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +52.9%	17 −52.9%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +41.9%	43 −41.9%
Hitman 3	15 −6.7%	16 +6.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 −125%	115 +125%
Metro Exodus	25 +31.6%	19 −31.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +56.3%	16 −56.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27 +22.7%	22 −22.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +25%	20−22 −25%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −18.3%	71 +18.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +214%	7 −214%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14 +75%	8−9 −75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +58.3%	12 −58.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +61.5%	13 −61.5%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +281%	16 −281%
Hitman 3	14 +7.7%	12−14 −7.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24 +50%	16 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	23 +43.8%	16 −43.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 +16.7%	12 −16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12 −325%	50−55 +325%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21
+16.7%

−16.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +50%	12−14 −50%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +40%	10−11 −40%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	11 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +95%	20−22 −95%
Hitman 3	10 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%
Metro Exodus	17 +183%	6−7 −183%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +700%	2−3 −700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Watch Dogs: Legion	59 +47.5%	40−45 −47.5%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

13
+18.2%

10−12

−18.2%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Hitman 3	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +131%	16−18 −131%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9 +800%	1−2 −800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+28.6%

7−8

−28.6%

This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

A tie in 1080p
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 60% faster in 1440p
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 50% faster in 4K

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

in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1000% faster.
in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 325% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 58 tests (82%)
GeForce MX250 is ahead in 11 tests (15%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.05	6.24
Recency	7 January 2020	20 February 2019
Chip lithography	7 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	10 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 45% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce MX250, on the other hand, has 50% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX250 in performance tests.

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