Radeon 680M vs ATI HD 4250

Place in the ranking	1311	336
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	0.89	22.29
Architecture	TeraScale (2005−2013)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	RV620	Rembrandt+
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	25 February 2009 (15 years ago)	3 January 2023 (1 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 cores	40	768
Core clock speed	594 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2200 MHz
Number of transistors	181 million	13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	2.376	105.6
Floating-point processing power	0.04752 TFLOPS	3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	32
TMUs	4	48
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	12

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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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 type	DDR2	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	System Shared
Memory bus width	64 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	396 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	6.336 GB/s	no data
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 Connectors

1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

Portable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX	10.1 (10_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.1	6.7
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	N/A	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3

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.

ATI HD 4250 0.32

Radeon 680M 15.98
+4894%

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.

ATI HD 4250 122

Radeon 680M 6166
+4954%

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.

ATI HD 4250 227

Radeon 680M 34600
+15142%

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 HD	0−1	37
1440p	-0−1	17
4K	-0−1	11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3

−1850%

39
+1850%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −1200%	35−40 +1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1350%	29 +1350%
Hitman 3	4−5 −700%	32 +700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −975%	85−90 +975%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −1325%	55−60 +1325%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −204%	85−90 +204%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −1200%	35−40 +1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −950%	21 +950%
Hitman 3	4−5 −650%	30 +650%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −975%	85−90 +975%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −1075%	47 +1075%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −344%	40−45 +344%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −204%	85−90 +204%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −1200%	35−40 +1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −750%	17 +750%
Hitman 3	4−5 −575%	27 +575%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −438%	43 +438%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −900%	40 +900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −167%	24 +167%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +55.6%	18 −55.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	11
Hitman 3	6−7 −233%	20−22 +233%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−1350%

27−30
+1350%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	8−9

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−650%

14−16
+650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	38 +0%	38 +0%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	31 +0%	31 +0%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	27 +0%	27 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

45−50

+0%

45−50

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27 +0%	27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	17 +0%	17 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13 +0%	13 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4 +0%	4 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 +0%	14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI HD 4250 is 56% faster.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Radeon 680M is 1850% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

ATI HD 4250 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
Radeon 680M is ahead in 28 tests (40%)
there's a draw in 41 test (59%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.32	15.98
Recency	25 February 2009	3 January 2023
Chip lithography	55 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	50 Watt

ATI HD 4250 has 100% lower power consumption.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has a 4893.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 816.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4250 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 4250 is a desktop card while Radeon 680M is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.