GeForce RTX 5080 vs Radeon R7 250X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 250X and GeForce RTX 5080, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 5080 outperforms R7 250X by a whopping 1484% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 606 | 4 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 47 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.63 | 40.39 |
| Power efficiency | 5.05 | 17.78 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | GB203 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 13 February 2014 (11 years ago) | 30 January 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 5080 has 6311% better value for money than R7 250X.
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 | 640 | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2617 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 360 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38.00 | 879.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.216 TFLOPS | 56.28 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 112 |
| TMUs | 40 | 336 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 84 |
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 support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 210 mm | 304 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 1x 16-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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1625 MHz | 1875 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 960.0 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 10.1 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
- Passmark
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.
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 | 12−14
−1642%
| 209
+1642%
|
| 1440p | 10−12
−1510%
| 161
+1510%
|
| 4K | 6−7
−1733%
| 110
+1733%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 8.25
−72.6%
| 4.78
+72.6%
|
| 1440p | 9.90
−59.5%
| 6.20
+59.5%
|
| 4K | 16.50
−81.7%
| 9.08
+81.7%
|
- RTX 5080 has 73% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 5080 has 60% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 5080 has 82% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Atomic Heart | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 550−600
+0%
|
550−600
+0%
|
| Atomic Heart | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
| Valorant | 550−600
+0%
|
550−600
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 282
+0%
|
282
+0%
|
| Valorant | 550−600
+0%
|
550−600
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 280−290
+0%
|
280−290
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 236
+0%
|
236
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Atomic Heart | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 236
+0%
|
236
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
This is how R7 250X and RTX 5080 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5080 is 1642% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5080 is 1510% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5080 is 1733% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.08 | 80.48 |
| Recency | 13 February 2014 | 30 January 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 360 Watt |
R7 250X has 350% lower power consumption.
RTX 5080, on the other hand, has a 1484.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250X in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
