Radeon RX 5500M vs GeForce MX250

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX250 and Radeon RX 5500M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce MX250
2019
2 GB GDDR5, 10 Watt
6.25

RX 5500M outperforms MX250 by a whopping 131% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking573357
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency43.2811.75
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameGP108BNavi 14
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date20 February 2019 (5 years ago)7 October 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 cores3841408
Core clock speed937 MHz1375 MHz
Boost clock speed1038 MHz1645 MHz
Number of transistors1,800 million6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt85 Watt
Texture fill rate24.91144.8
Floating-point processing power0.7972 TFLOPS4.632 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs2488

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x4PCIe 4.0 x8
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 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth48.06 GB/s224.0 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.7 (6.4)6.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.0
Vulkan1.31.2.131
CUDA6.1-

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 MX250 6.25
RX 5500M 14.42
+131%

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
RX 5500M 5563
+131%

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.

GeForce MX250 4633
RX 5500M 16476
+256%

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.

GeForce MX250 3660
RX 5500M 12276
+235%

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.

GeForce MX250 21545
RX 5500M 50946
+136%

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 9236
RX 5500M 38079
+312%

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.

GeForce MX250 235421
+11.6%
RX 5500M 210925

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.

GeForce MX250 9349
RX 5500M 35698
+282%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GeForce MX250 1103
RX 5500M 4298
+290%

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
−159%
57
+159%
1440p24−27
−133%
56
+133%
4K12−14
−158%
31
+158%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14
−293%
55
+293%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 19
−126%
43
+126%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
−331%
56
+331%
Battlefield 5 21
−119%
45−50
+119%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18
−194%
53
+194%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
−291%
43
+291%
Far Cry 5 22
−50%
30−35
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 27
−44.4%
35−40
+44.4%
Forza Horizon 4 46
−102%
90−95
+102%
Hitman 3 16
−263%
58
+263%
Horizon Zero Dawn 118
−23.7%
146
+23.7%
Metro Exodus 25
−92%
45−50
+92%
Red Dead Redemption 2 28
−104%
57
+104%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35
−31.4%
45−50
+31.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 76
−122%
169
+122%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24
−37.5%
30−35
+37.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
−225%
26
+225%
Battlefield 5 17
−100%
34
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 17
−182%
48
+182%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−230%
33
+230%
Far Cry 5 19
−73.7%
30−35
+73.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 17
−129%
35−40
+129%
Forza Horizon 4 43
−116%
90−95
+116%
Hitman 3 16
−263%
58
+263%
Horizon Zero Dawn 115
−25.2%
144
+25.2%
Metro Exodus 19
−89.5%
36
+89.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16
−225%
52
+225%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 22
−273%
82
+273%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
−70%
30−35
+70%
Watch Dogs: Legion 71
−137%
168
+137%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7
−343%
31
+343%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
−75%
14
+75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12
−117%
26
+117%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−200%
30
+200%
Far Cry 5 13
−154%
30−35
+154%
Forza Horizon 4 16
−481%
90−95
+481%
Hitman 3 12−14
−285%
50
+285%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16
−331%
69
+331%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
−350%
72
+350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
−275%
45
+275%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+132%
22
−132%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18
−200%
54
+200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−350%
54
+350%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
−120%
21−24
+120%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−900%
10
+900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−150%
14−16
+150%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
−265%
70−75
+265%
Hitman 3 10−11
−230%
33
+230%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−293%
55
+293%
Metro Exodus 6−7
−683%
47
+683%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
−1150%
24−27
+1150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−200%
14−16
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−308%
163
+308%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
−264%
40
+264%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
−480%
29
+480%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Hitman 3 2−3
−350%
9
+350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−306%
65
+306%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−833%
28
+833%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−100%
8−9
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 2−3
Far Cry 5 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−217%
18−20
+217%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
−1200%
12−14
+1200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−186%
20
+186%

This is how GeForce MX250 and RX 5500M compete in popular games:

  • RX 5500M is 159% faster in 1080p
  • RX 5500M is 133% faster in 1440p
  • RX 5500M is 158% faster in 4K

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 132% faster.
  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 5500M is 1200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce MX250 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • RX 5500M is ahead in 70 tests (99%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.25 14.42
Recency 20 February 2019 7 October 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 85 Watt

GeForce MX250 has 750% lower power consumption.

RX 5500M, on the other hand, has a 130.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 5500M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX250 in performance tests.


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
AMD Radeon RX 5500M
Radeon RX 5500M

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 1538 votes

Rate GeForce MX250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 351 vote

Rate Radeon RX 5500M 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.