GeForce GTS 250M vs Radeon R7 265
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 265 with GeForce GTS 250M, including specs and performance data.
R7 265 outperforms GTS 250M by a whopping 627% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 436 | 996 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.25 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.83 | 3.56 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | GT215 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 13 February 2014 (10 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 1024 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 925 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 59.20 | 16.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.894 TFLOPS | 0.24 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 360 |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 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 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 210 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | - | + |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1400 MHz | Up to 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 51.2 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | HDMIVGALVDSSingle Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVI |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
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 |
| 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_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 200−210
+614%
| 28
−614%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 0.75 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how R7 265 and GTS 250M compete in popular games:
- R7 265 is 614% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 49 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.39 | 1.43 |
| Recency | 13 February 2014 | 15 June 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 28 Watt |
R7 265 has a 626.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GTS 250M, on the other hand, has 435.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop card while GeForce GTS 250M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
