GeForce MX250 vs Radeon HD 6950M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 6950M and GeForce MX250, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD 6950M
2011
1 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
3.56

MX250 outperforms HD 6950M by an impressive 76% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking719577
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency4.9643.63
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameBlackcombGP108B
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date4 January 2011 (13 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 cores960384
Core clock speed580 MHz937 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1038 MHz
Number of transistors1,700 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate27.8424.91
Floating-point processing power1.114 TFLOPS0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
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 sizelargelarge
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x4
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth115.2 GB/s48.06 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.06.7 (6.4)
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.23.0
VulkanN/A1.3
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.

HD 6950M 3.56
GeForce MX250 6.26
+75.8%

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.

HD 6950M 2452
GeForce MX250 4633
+88.9%

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.

HD 6950M 10122
GeForce MX250 16488
+62.9%

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 HD12−14
−83.3%
22
+83.3%

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 20−22
−130%
46
+130%
Hitman 3 9−10
−77.8%
16
+77.8%
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 20−22
−115%
43
+115%
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 14−16
−57.1%
22
+57.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−33.3%
20−22
+33.3%
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 20−22
+25%
16
−25%
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 14−16
−14.3%
16
+14.3%
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 1−2
−1900%
20−22
+1900%
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 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
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 HD 6950M and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX250 is 83% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 6950M is 56% faster.
  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 1900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD 6950M 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 3.56 6.26
Recency 4 January 2011 20 February 2019
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 10 Watt

GeForce MX250 has a 75.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX250 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6950M 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.


AMD Radeon HD 6950M
Radeon HD 6950M
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.


5 1 vote

Rate Radeon HD 6950M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1544 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.