Radeon R7 250X vs R9 M390
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M390 with Radeon R7 250X, including specs and performance data.
R9 M390 outperforms R7 250X by an impressive 64% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 475 | 606 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.63 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 5.05 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 9 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 13 February 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 640 |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5000 Million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 38.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.216 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 40 |
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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 210 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1 x 6-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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 96 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 | no data | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | + | + |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| Mantle | + | - |
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 | 43
+79.2%
| 24−27
−79.2%
|
| 4K | 20
+66.7%
| 12−14
−66.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.13 |
| 4K | no data | 8.25 |
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 | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+66.7%
|
24−27
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+66.7%
|
24−27
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+76%
|
50−55
−76%
|
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+66.7%
|
24−27
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+72.5%
|
80−85
−72.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+65%
|
40−45
−65%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+66.7%
|
24−27
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 34
+88.9%
|
18−20
−88.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+76%
|
50−55
−76%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+66.7%
|
24−27
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+65%
|
40−45
−65%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+66.7%
|
24−27
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+76%
|
50−55
−76%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+72.5%
|
40−45
−72.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+66.7%
|
27−30
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+68.3%
|
60−65
−68.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+74.1%
|
27−30
−74.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
This is how R9 M390 and R7 250X compete in popular games:
- R9 M390 is 79% faster in 1080p
- R9 M390 is 67% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.33 | 5.08 |
| Recency | 9 June 2015 | 13 February 2014 |
R9 M390 has a 64% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
The Radeon R9 M390 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250X in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M390 is a notebook card while Radeon R7 250X is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
