Radeon R7 250 vs RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregated performance score
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms R7 250 by 227% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 443 | 760 |
| Place by popularity | 30 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | no data | 0.10 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2021) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | Vega | Oland XT |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (4 years ago) | 1 October 2013 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $89 |
| Current price | no data | $256 (2.9x MSRP) |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 384 |
| Boost clock speed | 2100 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 25.20 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 716.8 gflops |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and Radeon R7 250 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | N/A |
| Memory type | no data | DDR3, GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1150 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 72 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| DisplayPort support | no data | - |
Supported GPU Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | + |
| CrossFire | no data | 1 |
| Enduro | no data | - |
| FreeSync | no data | 1 |
| HD3D | no data | - |
| PowerTune | no data | - |
| TrueAudio | no data | - |
| ZeroCore | no data | - |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Mantle | no data | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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) outperforms R7 250 by 227% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms R7 250 by 78% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms R7 250 by 113% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms R7 250 by 75% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms R7 250 by 80% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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
+15.8%
| 19
−15.8%
|
| 1440p | 16
+300%
| 4−5
−300%
|
| 4K | 10
+233%
| 3−4
−233%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 20
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+550%
|
6−7
−550%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 22
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+357%
|
7−8
−357%
|
| Hitman 3 | 25
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 22
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 23
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 33
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 25
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+357%
|
7−8
−357%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 20
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+357%
|
7−8
−357%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Hitman 3 | 15
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 11
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 17
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and R7 250 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 15.8% faster than R7 250 in 1080p
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 300% faster than R7 250 in 1440p
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 233% faster than R7 250 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 2000% faster than the R7 250.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) surpassed R7 250 in all 53 of our tests.
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 9.06 | 2.77 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 1 October 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook card while Radeon R7 250 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
