Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs R7 250

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250 and Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 250
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
2.74

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms R7 250 by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking803771
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.10no data
Power efficiency2.89no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)GCN (2012−2015)
GPU code nameOlandKaveri Spectre
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)14 January 2014 (10 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 cores384512
Core clock speedno data720 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Wattno data
Texture fill rate25.20no data
Floating-point processing power0.8064 TFLOPSno data
ROPs8no data
TMUs24no data

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 x8no data
Length168 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1150 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth72 GB/sno data
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 VGAno data
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 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data

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 2.74
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 3.04
+10.9%

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
+20.5%
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 2302

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
+32.7%
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 1616

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
+45.8%
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 10341

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
+39.1%
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 20

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 HD21
+16.7%
18
−16.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.24no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Battlefield 5 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−2.6%
35−40
+2.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Battlefield 5 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−92.9%
27
+92.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−2.6%
35−40
+2.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+133%
6
−133%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−2.6%
35−40
+2.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

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

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how R7 250 and R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:

  • R7 250 is 17% faster in 1080p

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R7 250 is 133% faster.
  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R7 250 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is ahead in 32 tests (53%)
  • there's a draw in 27 tests (45%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.74 3.04
Recency 8 October 2013 14 January 2014

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 10.9% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 3 months.

The Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 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
AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

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.


3.6 440 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 14 votes

Rate Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 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.