Arc A380 vs Radeon R7 250

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250 and Arc A380, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 250
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
2.75

Arc A380 outperforms R7 250 by a whopping 486% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking800331
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.1043.73
Power efficiency2.9514.97
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameOlandDG2-128
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)14 June 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$89 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Arc A380 has 43630% better value for money than R7 250.

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 cores3841024
Core clock speedno data2000 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz2050 MHz
Number of transistors950 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate25.20131.2
Floating-point processing power0.8064 TFLOPS4.198 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs2464
Tensor Coresno data128
Ray Tracing Coresno 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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x8
Length168 mm222 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsN/A1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed1150 MHz1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s186.0 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI++

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan-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.

R7 250 2.75
Arc A380 16.11
+486%

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.

R7 250 1059
Arc A380 6215
+487%

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.

R7 250 2775
Arc A380 13892
+401%

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.

R7 250 12581
Arc A380 53979
+329%

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.

R7 250 2145
Arc A380 10174
+374%

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.

R7 250 15080
Arc A380 60804
+303%

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

R7 250 27
Arc A380 53979
+196904%

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 HD20
−135%
47
+135%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.453.17

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−578%
61
+578%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−4900%
50
+4900%
Battlefield 5 4−5
−2325%
95−100
+2325%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−771%
60−65
+771%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−1240%
65−70
+1240%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−986%
75−80
+986%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−1071%
160−170
+1071%
Hitman 3 8−9
−675%
60−65
+675%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−529%
130−140
+529%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−3267%
100−110
+3267%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−971%
75−80
+971%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−758%
100−110
+758%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−197%
110−120
+197%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−700%
72
+700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−3600%
37
+3600%
Battlefield 5 4−5
−2325%
95−100
+2325%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−771%
60−65
+771%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−1240%
65−70
+1240%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−986%
75−80
+986%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−1071%
160−170
+1071%
Hitman 3 8−9
−675%
60−65
+675%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−529%
130−140
+529%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−3267%
100−110
+3267%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−971%
75−80
+971%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−567%
80
+567%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−350%
60−65
+350%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−197%
110−120
+197%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−222%
29
+222%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−3000%
31
+3000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−771%
60−65
+771%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−1240%
65−70
+1240%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−307%
57
+307%
Hitman 3 8−9
−675%
60−65
+675%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−148%
52
+148%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−408%
61
+408%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−143%
34
+143%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+52%
25
−52%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−971%
75−80
+971%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−1300%
55−60
+1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−1025%
45−50
+1025%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−1450%
30−35
+1450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−1600%
30−35
+1600%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−1033%
30−35
+1033%
Hitman 3 8−9
−350%
35−40
+350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
−786%
60−65
+786%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−1850%
35−40
+1850%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
−900%
160−170
+900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−733%
50−55
+733%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−2800%
27−30
+2800%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−1100%
24−27
+1100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−850%
18−20
+850%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1600%
16−18
+1600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1600%
16−18
+1600%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 40−45
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 14−16

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−550%
24−27
+550%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

This is how R7 250 and Arc A380 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A380 is 135% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R7 250 is 52% faster.
  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A380 is 4900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R7 250 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • Arc A380 is ahead in 54 tests (84%)
  • there's a draw in 9 tests (14%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.75 16.11
Recency 8 October 2013 14 June 2022
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm

Arc A380 has a 485.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A380 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250 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 R7 250
Radeon R7 250
Intel Arc A380
Arc A380

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.


3.6 435 votes

Rate Radeon R7 250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 811 votes

Rate Arc A380 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.