GeForce GTS 150M vs Radeon R7 250

Place in the ranking	800	1028
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.10	no data
Power efficiency	2.95	2.03
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Oland	G94
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	3 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$89	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 cores	384	64
Core clock speed	no data	400 MHz
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	950 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	25.20	12.80
Floating-point processing power	0.8064 TFLOPS	0.128 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	192
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	24	32

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 size	no data	large
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	168 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	N/A	no data
SLI options	-	2-way
MXM Type	no data	MXM 3.0 Type-B

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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1150 MHz	Up to 800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	51 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 Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA	DisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVILVDSSingle Link DVIVGA
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

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
Power management	no data	8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/A
CUDA	-	+

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
+110%

GTS 150M 1.31

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
+110%

GTS 150M 504

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

20
+122%

9−10

−122%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.45

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
+25%

4−5

−25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +50%	14−16 −50%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +15.2%	30−35 −15.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +50%	14−16 −50%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +27.3%	10−12 −27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +15.2%	30−35 −15.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +50%	14−16 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +27.3%	10−12 −27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +15.2%	30−35 −15.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+250%

2−3

−250%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+50%

4−5

−50%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

This is how R7 250 and GTS 150M compete in popular games:

R7 250 is 122% faster in 1080p

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R7 250 is 600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R7 250 is ahead in 46 tests (96%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (4%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.75	1.31
Recency	8 October 2013	3 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	45 Watt

R7 250 has a 109.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

GTS 150M, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 250 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 150M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250 is a desktop card while GeForce GTS 150M is a notebook one.

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