GeForce MX250 vs Quadro P6000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P6000 with GeForce MX250, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P6000
2016
24 GB 384-bit, 250 Watt
39.72
+537%

P6000 outperforms MX250 by a whopping 537% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking108579
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.94no data
Power efficiency10.8942.78
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGP102GP108B
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date1 October 2016 (8 years ago)20 February 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$5,999 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 cores3840384
Core clock speed1506 MHz937 MHz
Boost clock speed1645 MHz1038 MHz
Number of transistors11,800 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate394.824.91
Floating-point processing power12.63 TFLOPS0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs9616
TMUs24024

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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x4
Length267 mmno data
Width2" (5.1 cm)no data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 8-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 type384 BitGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount24 GB2 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1127 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 432 GB/s48.06 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors1x DVI, 4x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
Number of simultaneous displays4no data
Multi-display synchronizationQuadro Sync IIno data

Supported technologies

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

ECC (Error Correcting Code)+no data
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
High-Performance Video I/O6+no data
nView Desktop Management+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.7 (6.4)
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA6.16.1

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.

Quadro P6000 39.72
+537%
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.

Quadro P6000 15307
+536%
GeForce MX250 2405

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.

Quadro P6000 64253
+593%
GeForce MX250 9273

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.

Quadro P6000 77200
+722%
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.

Quadro P6000 47462
+388%
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:

Full HD140−150
+536%
22
−536%

Cost per frame, $

1080p42.85no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 19
+0%
19
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Battlefield 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18
+0%
18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry 5 22
+0%
22
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27
+0%
27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 46
+0%
46
+0%
Hitman 3 16
+0%
16
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 118
+0%
118
+0%
Metro Exodus 25
+0%
25
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35
+0%
35
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 76
+0%
76
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24
+0%
24
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Battlefield 5 17
+0%
17
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 17
+0%
17
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 17
+0%
17
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 43
+0%
43
+0%
Hitman 3 16
+0%
16
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 115
+0%
115
+0%
Metro Exodus 19
+0%
19
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16
+0%
16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 22
+0%
22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 71
+0%
71
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7
+0%
7
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12
+0%
12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 13
+0%
13
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16
+0%
16
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16
+0%
16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
+0%
16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
+0%
12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18
+0%
18
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

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

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
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

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

This is how Quadro P6000 and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P6000 is 536% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 71 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 39.72 6.24
Recency 1 October 2016 20 February 2019
Maximum RAM amount 24 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 10 Watt

Quadro P6000 has a 536.5% higher aggregate performance score, and a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX250, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 2400% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX250 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P6000 is a workstation 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 Quadro P6000
Quadro P6000
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.


3.6 89 votes

Rate Quadro P6000 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.