GeForce MX250 vs Radeon X1050
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 554 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Rage 9 (2003−2006) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | RV370 | N17S-G2 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 December 2006 (17 years ago) | 20 February 2019 (5 years ago) |
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 | no data | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 1518 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1582 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 107 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 110 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24 Watt | 10/25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 1.600 | 24.91 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 0.7972 gflops |
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 | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 128 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 666 MHz | 7000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 5.328 GB/s | 48.06 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 7 December 2006 | 20 February 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 128 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 110 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24 Watt | 10 Watt |
GeForce MX250 has an age advantage of 12 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 685.7% more advanced lithography process, and 140% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Radeon X1050 and GeForce MX250. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Radeon X1050 is a desktop card while GeForce MX250 is a notebook 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.
