GeForce MX250 vs 320M

Place in the ranking	1221	579
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.61	42.76
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	C89	GP108B
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 April 2010 (14 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	48	384
Core clock speed	450 MHz	937 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1038 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	7.200	24.91
Floating-point processing power	0.0912 TFLOPS	0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	16	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	PCIe 2.0 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	System Shared	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	2 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	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 outputs

Portable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.7 (6.4)
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	N/A	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	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.

GeForce 320M 0.54

GeForce MX250 6.24
+1056%

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.

GeForce 320M 209

GeForce MX250 2405
+1051%

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.

GeForce 320M 1852

GeForce MX250 16488
+790%

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

−37.5%

22
+37.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−367%

14
+367%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −375%	19 +375%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −500%	18 +500%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −267%	11 +267%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −2600%	27 +2600%
Hitman 3	5−6 −220%	16 +220%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −1080%	118 +1080%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −483%	35 +483%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −153%	76 +153%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −500%	24 +500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −467%	17 +467%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −1600%	17 +1600%
Hitman 3	5−6 −220%	16 +220%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −1050%	115 +1050%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −267%	22 +267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −100%	20−22 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −137%	71 +137%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −75%	7 +75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −300%	12 +300%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Hitman 3	5−6 −160%	12−14 +160%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −60%	16 +60%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −167%	16 +167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −20%	12 +20%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −70%	50−55 +70%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−900%

10−11
+900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	6−7
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Hitman 3	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −367%	14−16 +367%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −3900%	40−45 +3900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−267%

10−12
+267%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	3−4

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−250%

7−8
+250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +0%	13 +0%
Battlefield 5	21 +0%	21 +0%
Far Cry 5	22 +0%	22 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	46 +0%	46 +0%
Metro Exodus	25 +0%	25 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	28 +0%	28 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Battlefield 5	17 +0%	17 +0%
Far Cry 5	19 +0%	19 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	43 +0%	43 +0%
Metro Exodus	19 +0%	19 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16 +0%	16 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	13 +0%	13 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16 +0%	16 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5

12−14

+0%

12−14

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

This is how GeForce 320M and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX250 is 38% faster in 1080p

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 3900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX250 is ahead in 35 tests (51%)
there's a draw in 34 tests (49%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.54	6.24
Recency	1 April 2010	20 February 2019
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	10 Watt

GeForce MX250 has a 1055.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 130% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX250 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.

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