Radeon HD 6250 vs R4 (Beema)

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1098not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGCN 1.1 (2014)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameBeemaCedar
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date29 April 2014 (10 years ago)31 January 2011 (13 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 cores12880
Core clock speed800 MHz650 MHz
Number of transistorsno data292 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data19 Watt
Texture fill rateno data5.200
Floating-point processing powerno data0.104 TFLOPS
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data512 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data8 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 data1x DVI, 1x HDMI
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.0
OpenGLno data4.4
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-N/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

R4 (Beema) 399
+329%
HD 6250 93

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.

R4 (Beema) 716
+316%
HD 6250 172

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.

R4 (Beema) 2506
+494%
HD 6250 422

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.

R4 (Beema) 3309
+203%
HD 6250 1091

Pros & cons summary


Recency 29 April 2014 31 January 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm

R4 (Beema) has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R4 (Beema) and Radeon HD 6250. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon R4 (Beema) is a notebook card while Radeon HD 6250 is a desktop 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.


AMD Radeon R4 (Beema)
Radeon R4 (Beema)
AMD Radeon HD 6250
Radeon HD 6250

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.


3.1 74 votes

Rate Radeon R4 (Beema) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 78 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6250 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.