Iris Xe Graphics MAX vs Radeon R7 250

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250 and Iris Xe Graphics MAX, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 250
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
2.72

Iris Xe Graphics MAX outperforms R7 250 by an impressive 89% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking817634
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.10no data
Power efficiency2.8714.07
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code nameOlandDG1
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)31 October 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$89 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores384768
Boost clock speed1050 MHz1650 MHz
Number of transistors950 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate25.2079.20
Floating-point processing power0.8064 TFLOPS2.534 TFLOPS
ROPs824
TMUs2448

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 x4
Length168 mmno data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsN/Ano data

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 typeGDDR5LPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1150 MHz4.3 GB/s
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s68.26 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 VGANo outputs
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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan-1.2

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.

R7 250 2.72
Iris Xe Graphics MAX 5.13
+88.6%

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 1046
Iris Xe Graphics MAX 1971
+88.4%

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 HD19
−84.2%
35−40
+84.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.68no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−77.8%
16−18
+77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Battlefield 5 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−77.8%
16−18
+77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Fortnite 12−14
−84.6%
24−27
+84.6%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−84.6%
24−27
+84.6%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−75%
21−24
+75%
Valorant 40−45
−81.8%
80−85
+81.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Battlefield 5 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−77.8%
16−18
+77.8%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45−50
−83.7%
90−95
+83.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Dota 2 24−27
−73.1%
45−50
+73.1%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Fortnite 12−14
−84.6%
24−27
+84.6%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−84.6%
24−27
+84.6%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−75%
21−24
+75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
Valorant 40−45
−81.8%
80−85
+81.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−77.8%
16−18
+77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Dota 2 24−27
−73.1%
45−50
+73.1%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−84.6%
24−27
+84.6%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−75%
21−24
+75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
Valorant 40−45
−81.8%
80−85
+81.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
−84.6%
24−27
+84.6%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
−66.7%
30−33
+66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
−84.2%
35−40
+84.2%
Valorant 21−24
−73.9%
40−45
+73.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−80%
27−30
+80%
Valorant 12−14
−84.6%
24−27
+84.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 7−8
−71.4%
12−14
+71.4%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%

This is how R7 250 and Iris Xe Graphics MAX compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics MAX is 84% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.72 5.13
Recency 8 October 2013 31 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 25 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics MAX has a 88.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe Graphics MAX is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250 in performance tests.

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 Iris Xe Graphics MAX
Iris Xe Graphics MAX

Other comparisons

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.


3.6 452 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 220 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics MAX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 250 or Iris Xe Graphics MAX, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.