GeForce RTX 2080 vs GTS 250

Place in the ranking	972	67
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.09	27.24
Power efficiency	0.70	15.56
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	G92B	TU104
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	4 March 2009 (15 years ago)	20 September 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	$699

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 2080 has 30167% better value for money than GTS 250.

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	128	2944
Core clock speed	738 MHz	1515 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1710 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	13,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	215 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	44.93	314.6
Floating-point processing power	0.3871 TFLOPS	10.07 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	64
TMUs	64	184
Tensor Cores	no data	368
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	46

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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	229 mm	267 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1100 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	70.4 GB/s	448.0 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	Two Dual Link DVI	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
G-SYNC support	-	+
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.5
OpenGL	3.0	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	7.5

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.

GTS 250 1.54

RTX 2080 48.77
+3067%

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.

GTS 250 594

RTX 2080 18783
+3062%

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	4−5 −3475%	143 +3475%
1440p	3−4 −3333%	103 +3333%
4K	2−3 −3350%	69 +3350%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	49.75	4.89
1440p	66.33	6.79
4K	99.50	10.13

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

85−90

+0%

85−90

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	105 +0%	105 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	98 +0%	98 +0%
Battlefield 5	194 +0%	194 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	132 +0%	132 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Far Cry 5	127 +0%	127 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	165 +0%	165 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	262 +0%	262 +0%
Hitman 3	135 +0%	135 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	263 +0%	263 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	109 +0%	109 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	215 +0%	215 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	253 +0%	253 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	153 +0%	153 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	83 +0%	83 +0%
Battlefield 5	182 +0%	182 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	117 +0%	117 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Far Cry 5	102 +0%	102 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	126 +0%	126 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	243 +0%	243 +0%
Hitman 3	131 +0%	131 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	254 +0%	254 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	117 +0%	117 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	180−190 +0%	180−190 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	243 +0%	243 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	68 +0%	68 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	73 +0%	73 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	90 +0%	90 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Far Cry 5	81 +0%	81 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	132 +0%	132 +0%
Hitman 3	115 +0%	115 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	169 +0%	169 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	180−190 +0%	180−190 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	106 +0%	106 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	79 +0%	79 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	123 +0%	123 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	88 +0%	88 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	58 +0%	58 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	60 +0%	60 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	69 +0%	69 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	70 +0%	70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	212 +0%	212 +0%
Hitman 3	80 +0%	80 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	129 +0%	129 +0%
Metro Exodus	89 +0%	89 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	239 +0%	239 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	66 +0%	66 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	50 +0%	50 +0%
Hitman 3	48 +0%	48 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	117 +0%	117 +0%
Metro Exodus	82 +0%	82 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	76 +0%	76 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	41 +0%	41 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	38 +0%	38 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	38 +0%	38 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	39 +0%	39 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	81 +0%	81 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35 +0%	35 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

This is how GTS 250 and RTX 2080 compete in popular games:

RTX 2080 is 3475% faster in 1080p
RTX 2080 is 3333% faster in 1440p
RTX 2080 is 3350% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.54	48.77
Recency	4 March 2009	20 September 2018
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	215 Watt

GTS 250 has 43.3% lower power consumption.

RTX 2080, on the other hand, has a 3066.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 358.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 2080 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 in performance tests.

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