GeForce MX250 vs Radeon R9 M470

Place in the ranking	585	579
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	no data	42.78
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Emerald	GP108B
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	15 May 2016 (8 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 cores	768	384
Core clock speed	900 MHz	937 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	1038 MHz
Number of transistors	2,080 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	48.00	24.91
Floating-point processing power	1.536 TFLOPS	0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	48	24

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	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x4
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	96 GB/s	48.06 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 Connectors

No outputs

Portable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	6.7 (6.4)
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3
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 M470 6.05

GeForce MX250 6.24
+3.1%

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.

R9 M470 2330

GeForce MX250 2405
+3.2%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R9 M470 3655

GeForce MX250 3660
+0.1%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

R9 M470 24365
+13.1%

GeForce MX250 21545

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

21−24

−4.8%

22
+4.8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11

−40%

14
+40%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 −18.8%	19 +18.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 −85.7%	13 +85.7%
Battlefield 5	16−18 −23.5%	21 +23.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 −38.5%	18 +38.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −10%	11 +10%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −69.2%	22 +69.2%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 −58.8%	27 +58.8%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −17.9%	46 +17.9%
Hitman 3	12−14 −33.3%	16 +33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 −219%	118 +219%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −56.3%	25 +56.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −75%	28 +75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 −66.7%	35 +66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 −52%	76 +52%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 −50%	24 +50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	17 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 −30.8%	17 +30.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −46.2%	19 +46.2%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +0%	17 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −10.3%	43 +10.3%
Hitman 3	12−14 −33.3%	16 +33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 −211%	115 +211%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −18.8%	19 +18.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 −4.8%	22 +4.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 −42%	71 +42%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 +129%	7 −129%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +8.3%	12 −8.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	13 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +144%	16 −144%
Hitman 3	12−14 −8.3%	12−14 +8.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +131%	16 −131%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 +31.3%	16 −31.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +66.7%	12 −66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 −2%	50−55 +2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

−12.5%

18
+12.5%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −11.1%	20−22 +11.1%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −5.3%	40−45 +5.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

+0%

10−12

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−16.7%

7−8
+16.7%

This is how R9 M470 and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX250 is 5% faster in 1080p

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 M470 is 144% faster.
in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 219% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R9 M470 is ahead in 6 tests (9%)
GeForce MX250 is ahead in 39 tests (56%)
there's a draw in 25 tests (36%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.05	6.24
Recency	15 May 2016	20 February 2019
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm

R9 M470 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX250, on the other hand, has a 3.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 M470 and GeForce MX250.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.