GeForce MX250 vs Radeon R9 M390

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M390 and GeForce MX250, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 M390
2015
2 GB GDDR5
10.05
+60.8%

R9 M390 outperforms MX250 by an impressive 61% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking444573
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data43.28
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code namePitcairnGP108B
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date9 June 2015 (9 years ago)20 February 2019 (5 years ago)

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 cores1024384
Core clock speedno data937 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1038 MHz
Number of transistors5000 Million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data10 Watt
Texture fill rateno data24.91
Floating-point processing powerno data0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data24

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 sizelargelarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x4
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1502 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data48.06 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 Connectorsno dataPortable Device Dependent
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.7 (6.4)
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCLNot Listed3.0
Vulkan-1.3
Mantle+-
CUDA-6.1

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.

R9 M390 10.05
+60.8%
GeForce MX250 6.25

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.

R9 M390 6819
+47.2%
GeForce MX250 4633

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 HD39
+77.3%
22
−77.3%
4K21
+75%
12−14
−75%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+7.1%
14
−7.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+26.3%
19
−26.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+15.4%
13
−15.4%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+47.6%
21
−47.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+11.1%
18
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+36.4%
11
−36.4%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+4.5%
22
−4.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+3.7%
27
−3.7%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+43.5%
46
−43.5%
Hitman 3 18−20
+18.8%
16
−18.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−119%
118
+119%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+24%
25
−24%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
−3.7%
28
+3.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
−9.4%
35
+9.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−20.6%
76
+20.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+82.4%
17
−82.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+17.6%
17
−17.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+21.1%
19
−21.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+64.7%
17
−64.7%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+53.5%
43
−53.5%
Hitman 3 18−20
+18.8%
16
−18.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−113%
115
+113%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+63.2%
19
−63.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+68.8%
16
−68.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+45.5%
22
−45.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+35%
20−22
−35%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−12.7%
71
+12.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+243%
7
−243%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+66.7%
12
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+76.9%
13
−76.9%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+313%
16
−313%
Hitman 3 18−20
+46.2%
12−14
−46.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+238%
16
−238%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+100%
16
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+50%
12
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+23.5%
50−55
−23.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+50%
18
−50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+120%
20−22
−120%
Hitman 3 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+57.5%
40−45
−57.5%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Hitman 3 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+163%
16−18
−163%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
+300%
3−4
−300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%

This is how R9 M390 and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

  • R9 M390 is 77% faster in 1080p
  • R9 M390 is 75% faster in 4K

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

  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 M390 is 550% faster.
  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 119% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 M390 is ahead in 64 tests (90%)
  • GeForce MX250 is ahead in 6 tests (8%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.05 6.25
Recency 9 June 2015 20 February 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm

R9 M390 has a 60.8% higher aggregate performance score.

GeForce MX250, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R9 M390 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX250 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 R9 M390
Radeon R9 M390
NVIDIA GeForce MX250
GeForce MX250

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.


3.2 13 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M390 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1538 votes

Rate GeForce MX250 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.