GeForce GTS 250 vs Radeon R7 370

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 370 and GeForce GTS 250, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 370
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 110 Watt
11.69
+659%

R7 370 outperforms GTS 250 by a whopping 659% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking411972
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.650.09
Power efficiency7.280.70
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameTrinidadG92B
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (9 years ago)4 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 $199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 370 has 7289% better value for money than GTS 250.

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 cores1024128
Core clock speedno data738 MHz
Boost clock speed975 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,800 million754 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)110 Watt150 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate62.4044.93
Floating-point processing power1.997 TFLOPS0.3871 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs6464

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 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length152 mm229 mm
Heightno data4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin1x 6-pin
SLI options-+

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed975 MHz1100 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s70.4 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortTwo Dual Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
DisplayPort support+-
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
TrueAudio+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.63.0
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan+N/A
Mantle+-
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 370 11.69
+659%
GTS 250 1.54

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 370 4503
+658%
GTS 250 594

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 HD47
+683%
6−7
−683%
1440p65
+713%
8−9
−713%
4K18
+800%
2−3
−800%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.1733.17
1440p2.2924.88
4K8.2899.50

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+825%
4−5
−825%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+700%
4−5
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+680%
10−11
−680%
Hitman 3 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+675%
8−9
−675%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+700%
4−5
−700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+750%
8−9
−750%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+825%
4−5
−825%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+700%
4−5
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+680%
10−11
−680%
Hitman 3 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+675%
8−9
−675%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+700%
4−5
−700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 89
+790%
10−11
−790%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+750%
8−9
−750%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+680%
10−11
−680%
Hitman 3 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+675%
8−9
−675%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+750%
8−9
−750%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+700%
4−5
−700%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+700%
7−8
−700%
Hitman 3 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+711%
9−10
−711%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+671%
7−8
−671%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%

This is how R7 370 and GTS 250 compete in popular games:

  • R7 370 is 683% faster in 1080p
  • R7 370 is 713% faster in 1440p
  • R7 370 is 800% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.69 1.54
Recency 18 June 2015 4 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 110 Watt 150 Watt

R7 370 has a 659.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 36.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 370 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 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 370
Radeon R7 370
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
GeForce GTS 250

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.


4 463 votes

Rate Radeon R7 370 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1667 votes

Rate GeForce GTS 250 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.