GeForce MX250 vs Iris Graphics 550

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Graphics 550 with GeForce MX250, including specs and performance data.

Iris Graphics 550
2015
15 Watt
3.70

MX250 outperforms Iris Graphics 550 by an impressive 69% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking705573
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency17.8045.09
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameSkylake GT3eGP108B
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date1 September 2015 (9 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 cores384384
Core clock speed300 MHz937 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1038 MHz
Number of transistors189 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate48.0024.91
Floating-point processing power0.768 TFLOPS0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs616
TMUs4824

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
InterfaceRing BusPCIe 3.0 x4
WidthIGPno data
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared2 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1502 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data48.06 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.7 (6.4)
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.03.0
Vulkan1.31.3
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.

Iris Graphics 550 3.70
GeForce MX250 6.25
+68.9%

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.

Iris Graphics 550 1427
GeForce MX250 2411
+69%

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.

Iris Graphics 550 9761
GeForce MX250 16488
+68.9%

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.

Iris Graphics 550 2534
GeForce MX250 4633
+82.9%

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.

Iris Graphics 550 1648
GeForce MX250 3660
+122%

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.

Iris Graphics 550 12986
GeForce MX250 21545
+65.9%

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.

Iris Graphics 550 144742
GeForce MX250 235421
+62.6%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Iris Graphics 550 561
GeForce MX250 1103
+96.8%

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 HD17
−29.4%
22
+29.4%
1440p28
−60.7%
45−50
+60.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−133%
14
+133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−90%
19
+90%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−550%
13
+550%
Battlefield 5 7−8
−200%
21
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−125%
18
+125%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−83.3%
11
+83.3%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−214%
22
+214%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
−170%
27
+170%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−119%
46
+119%
Hitman 3 7
−129%
16
+129%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−372%
118
+372%
Metro Exodus 6−7
−317%
25
+317%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−211%
28
+211%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−150%
35
+150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−85.4%
76
+85.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−140%
24
+140%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Battlefield 5 7−8
−143%
17
+143%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−113%
17
+113%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−171%
19
+171%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
−70%
17
+70%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−105%
43
+105%
Hitman 3 9−10
−77.8%
16
+77.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−360%
115
+360%
Metro Exodus 6−7
−217%
19
+217%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−77.8%
16
+77.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12
−83.3%
22
+83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
−5.3%
20−22
+5.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−73.2%
71
+73.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+42.9%
7
−42.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−50%
12
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−85.7%
13
+85.7%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+31.3%
16
−31.3%
Hitman 3 9−10
−44.4%
12−14
+44.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+56.3%
16
−56.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 15
−6.7%
16
+6.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+25%
12
−25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−24.4%
50−55
+24.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−100%
18
+100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−900%
20−22
+900%
Hitman 3 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21−24
−81.8%
40−45
+81.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−57.1%
10−12
+57.1%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High Preset

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

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how Iris Graphics 550 and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX250 is 29% faster in 1080p
  • GeForce MX250 is 61% faster in 1440p

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Graphics 550 is 56% faster.
  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Graphics 550 is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
  • GeForce MX250 is ahead in 59 tests (83%)
  • there's a draw in 8 tests (11%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.70 6.25
Recency 1 September 2015 20 February 2019
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 10 Watt

GeForce MX250 has a 68.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and 50% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX250 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Graphics 550 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Graphics 550 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.


Intel Iris Graphics 550
Iris Graphics 550
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.


3.3 53 votes

Rate Iris Graphics 550 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1536 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.