RTX A400 vs GeForce MX250

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX250 with RTX A400, including specs and performance data.

GeForce MX250
2019
2 GB GDDR5, 10 Watt
6.25

RTX A400 outperforms MX250 by an impressive 80% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking577417
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency43.5815.72
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGP108BGA107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date20 February 2019 (5 years ago)16 April 2024 (less than a year 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 cores384768
Core clock speed937 MHz727 MHz
Boost clock speed1038 MHz1762 MHz
Number of transistors1,800 million8,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate24.9142.29
Floating-point processing power0.7972 TFLOPS2.706 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs2424
Tensor Coresno data24
Ray Tracing Coresno data6

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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x4PCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data163 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth48.06 GB/s96 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.7 (6.4)6.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.03.0
Vulkan1.31.3
CUDA6.18.6

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 MX250 6.25
RTX A400 11.27
+80.3%

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 MX250 2412
RTX A400 4346
+80.2%

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.

GeForce MX250 9238
RTX A400 22671
+145%

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 HD22
−59.1%
35−40
+59.1%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14
−71.4%
24−27
+71.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 19
−57.9%
30−33
+57.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
−61.5%
21−24
+61.5%
Battlefield 5 21
−66.7%
35−40
+66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18
−66.7%
30−33
+66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
−63.6%
18−20
+63.6%
Far Cry 5 22
−59.1%
35−40
+59.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 27
−66.7%
45−50
+66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 46
−73.9%
80−85
+73.9%
Hitman 3 16
−68.8%
27−30
+68.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 118
−78%
210−220
+78%
Metro Exodus 25
−80%
45−50
+80%
Red Dead Redemption 2 28
−78.6%
50−55
+78.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35
−71.4%
60−65
+71.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 76
−71.1%
130−140
+71.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24
−66.7%
40−45
+66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
Battlefield 5 17
−76.5%
30−33
+76.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 17
−76.5%
30−33
+76.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−80%
18−20
+80%
Far Cry 5 19
−57.9%
30−33
+57.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 17
−76.5%
30−33
+76.5%
Forza Horizon 4 43
−74.4%
75−80
+74.4%
Hitman 3 16
−68.8%
27−30
+68.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 115
−73.9%
200−210
+73.9%
Metro Exodus 19
−57.9%
30−33
+57.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16
−68.8%
27−30
+68.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 22
−59.1%
35−40
+59.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
−75%
35−40
+75%
Watch Dogs: Legion 71
−69%
120−130
+69%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7
−71.4%
12−14
+71.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12
−75%
21−24
+75%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−80%
18−20
+80%
Far Cry 5 13
−61.5%
21−24
+61.5%
Forza Horizon 4 16
−68.8%
27−30
+68.8%
Hitman 3 12−14
−61.5%
21−24
+61.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16
−68.8%
27−30
+68.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
−68.8%
27−30
+68.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
−75%
21−24
+75%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
−76.5%
90−95
+76.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18
−66.7%
30−33
+66.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−75%
21−24
+75%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
−80%
18−20
+80%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−71.4%
12−14
+71.4%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
−75%
35−40
+75%
Hitman 3 10−11
−80%
18−20
+80%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−71.4%
24−27
+71.4%
Metro Exodus 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−75%
70−75
+75%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
−63.6%
18−20
+63.6%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Hitman 3 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−68.8%
27−30
+68.8%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−71.4%
12−14
+71.4%

This is how GeForce MX250 and RTX A400 compete in popular games:

  • RTX A400 is 59% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.25 11.27
Recency 20 February 2019 16 April 2024
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 50 Watt

GeForce MX250 has 400% lower power consumption.

RTX A400, on the other hand, has a 80.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A400 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX250 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX250 is a notebook card while RTX A400 is a workstation 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 MX250
GeForce MX250
NVIDIA RTX A400
RTX A400

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.


3.6 1545 votes

Rate GeForce MX250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 12 votes

Rate RTX A400 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.