Radeon R7 250E vs RX 460

Place in the ranking	432	668
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.12	1.14
Power efficiency	9.80	5.49
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	Baffin	Cape Verde
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	8 August 2016 (8 years ago)	20 December 2013 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$86	$109

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 250E has 2% better value for money than RX 460.

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	896	512
Core clock speed	1090 MHz	800 MHz
Boost clock speed	1200 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,000 million	1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	55 Watt
Texture fill rate	67.20	25.60
Floating-point processing power	2.15 TFLOPS	0.8192 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	56	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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	170 mm	168 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	1125 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112.0 GB/s	72 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	+

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (11_1)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131

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.

RX 460 10.63
+143%

R7 250E 4.37

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.

RX 460 5701
+189%

R7 250E 1970

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	40 +150%	16−18 −150%
1440p	28 +180%	10−12 −180%
4K	19 +171%	7−8 −171%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.15	6.81
1440p	3.07	10.90
4K	4.53	15.57

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

16−18

+167%

6−7
−167%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	34 +183%	12−14 −183%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Battlefield 5	30−35 +175%	12−14 −175%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +163%	8−9 −163%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +150%	10−11 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +163%	27−30 −163%
Hitman 3	20−22 +150%	8−9 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +176%	21−24 −176%
Metro Exodus	44 +144%	18−20 −144%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +150%	14−16 −150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +171%	24−27 −171%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	54 +157%	21−24 −157%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Battlefield 5	22 +144%	9−10 −144%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +163%	8−9 −163%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +150%	10−11 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	31 +158%	12−14 −158%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +163%	27−30 −163%
Hitman 3	20−22 +150%	8−9 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +176%	21−24 −176%
Metro Exodus	35 +150%	14−16 −150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +150%	14−16 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +180%	10−11 −180%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +171%	24−27 −171%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	17 +183%	6−7 −183%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +163%	8−9 −163%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +150%	10−11 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	41 +156%	16−18 −156%
Hitman 3	20−22 +150%	8−9 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	36 +157%	14−16 −157%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +150%	14−16 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	23 +156%	9−10 −156%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +171%	24−27 −171%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−33
+150%

12−14

−150%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +163%	8−9 −163%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +172%	18−20 −172%
Hitman 3	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
Horizon Zero Dawn	25 +150%	10−11 −150%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +150%	6−7 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +148%	27−30 −148%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20

+157%

7−8
−157%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	13 +160%	5−6 −160%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Hitman 3	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +161%	18−20 −161%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12 +200%	4−5 −200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

+150%

4−5
−150%

This is how RX 460 and R7 250E compete in popular games:

RX 460 is 150% faster in 1080p
RX 460 is 180% faster in 1440p
RX 460 is 171% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.63	4.37
Recency	8 August 2016	20 December 2013
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	55 Watt

RX 460 has a 143.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

R7 250E, on the other hand, has 36.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 460 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250E in performance tests.

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