GeForce MX250 vs GTX 680

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 680 with GeForce MX250, including specs and performance data.

GTX 680
2012
2048 MB GDDR5, 195 Watt
14.45
+132%

GTX 680 outperforms MX250 by a whopping 132% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking361579
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.03no data
Power efficiency5.0842.78
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGK104GP108B
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years ago)20 February 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1536384
Core clock speed1006 MHz937 MHz
Boost clock speed1058 MHz1038 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)195 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate135.424.91
Floating-point processing power3.25 TFLOPS0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs12824

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x4
Length254 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2048 MB2 GB
Memory bus width256-bit GDDR564 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.2 GB/s48.06 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 ConnectorsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.7 (6.4)
OpenGL4.24.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
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.

GTX 680 14.45
+132%
GeForce MX250 6.24

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.

GTX 680 5567
+131%
GeForce MX250 2405

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.

GTX 680 10217
+121%
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.

GTX 680 29702
+80.1%
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.

GTX 680 7587
+107%
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.

GTX 680 47130
+119%
GeForce MX250 21545

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 680 18403
+98.5%
GeForce MX250 9273

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.

GTX 680 247306
+5%
GeForce MX250 235421

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

GTX 680 17527
+86.6%
GeForce MX250 9392

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

GTX 680 13248
+36.1%
GeForce MX250 9734

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:

900p45
+150%
18−20
−150%
Full HD74
+236%
22
−236%
4K23
+156%
9−10
−156%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.74no data
4K21.70no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+57.1%
14
−57.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+73.7%
19
−73.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+76.9%
13
−76.9%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+124%
21
−124%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+61.1%
18
−61.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+100%
11
−100%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+54.5%
22
−54.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+44.4%
27
−44.4%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+104%
46
−104%
Hitman 3 27−30
+68.8%
16
−68.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
−59.5%
118
+59.5%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+96%
25
−96%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+42.9%
28
−42.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+34.3%
35
−34.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+0%
76
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+37.5%
24
−37.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+188%
8−9
−188%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+176%
17
−176%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+70.6%
17
−70.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+78.9%
19
−78.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+129%
17
−129%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+119%
43
−119%
Hitman 3 27−30
+68.8%
16
−68.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
−55.4%
115
+55.4%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+158%
19
−158%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+150%
16
−150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+114%
22
−114%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 94
+370%
20−22
−370%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+7%
71
−7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+371%
7
−371%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+188%
8−9
−188%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+142%
12
−142%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+162%
13
−162%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+488%
16
−488%
Hitman 3 27−30
+108%
12−14
−108%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+363%
16
−363%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+194%
16
−194%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+83.3%
12
−83.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+49%
50−55
−49%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+122%
18
−122%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+120%
10−11
−120%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+270%
20−22
−270%
Hitman 3 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+107%
14−16
−107%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+123%
40−45
−123%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+118%
10−12
−118%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Hitman 3 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+344%
16−18
−344%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
+433%
3−4
−433%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+217%
6−7
−217%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%

This is how GTX 680 and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 680 is 150% faster in 900p
  • GTX 680 is 236% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 680 is 156% faster in 4K

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

  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 680 is 1300% faster.
  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 59% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 680 is ahead in 68 tests (96%)
  • GeForce MX250 is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.45 6.24
Recency 22 March 2012 20 February 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 195 Watt 10 Watt

GTX 680 has a 131.6% higher aggregate performance score.

GeForce MX250, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 1850% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 680 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX250 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 680 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680
GeForce GTX 680
NVIDIA GeForce MX250
GeForce MX250

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 583 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 680 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1556 votes

Rate GeForce MX250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.