Radeon HD 6250 vs RX 8060S

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 8060S with Radeon HD 6250, including specs and performance data.


RX 8060S
2025
40.46
+18291%

8060S outperforms HD 6250 by a whopping 18291% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1181443
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data0.89
ArchitectureRDNA 3.5 (2024−2025)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameno dataCedar
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date6 January 2025 (1 year ago)31 January 2011 (15 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 cores4080
Core clock speedno data650 MHz
Boost clock speed2900 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data292 million
Manufacturing process technologyno data40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data19 Watt
Texture fill rateno data5.200
Floating-point processing powerno data0.104 TFLOPS
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8
L1 Cacheno data16 KB
L2 Cacheno data128 KB

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data512 MB
Memory bus widthno data64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data8 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectorsno data1x DVI, 1x HDMI
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectXno data11.2 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.0
OpenGLno data4.4
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-N/A

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

RX 8060S 40.46
+18291%
HD 6250 0.22

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.

RX 8060S 40164
+23251%
HD 6250 172

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

RX 8060S 96996
+22885%
HD 6250 422

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.

RX 8060S 148182
+13482%
HD 6250 1091

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 HD103
+1617%
6
−1617%
1440p51-0−1
4K35-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 220−230
+22300%
1−2
−22300%
Cyberpunk 2077 95−100
+9500%
1−2
−9500%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 110−120 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 130−140 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 215
+21400%
1−2
−21400%
Cyberpunk 2077 95−100
+9500%
1−2
−9500%
Far Cry 5 96 0−1
Fortnite 170−180 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+5133%
3−4
−5133%
Forza Horizon 5 120−130 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+2171%
7−8
−2171%
Valorant 230−240
+840%
24−27
−840%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 130−140 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 109 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+2225%
12−14
−2225%
Cyberpunk 2077 95−100
+9500%
1−2
−9500%
Far Cry 5 95 0−1
Fortnite 170−180 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+5133%
3−4
−5133%
Forza Horizon 5 120−130 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 127 0−1
Metro Exodus 95−100 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+2171%
7−8
−2171%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 140−150
+2860%
5−6
−2860%
Valorant 230−240
+840%
24−27
−840%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 95−100
+9500%
1−2
−9500%
Far Cry 5 92 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+5133%
3−4
−5133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+2171%
7−8
−2171%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 101
+1920%
5−6
−1920%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 170−180 0−1

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 71
+2267%
3−4
−2267%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 280−290
+28700%
1−2
−28700%
Grand Theft Auto V 70 0−1
Metro Exodus 60−65 0−1
Valorant 260−270
+26400%
1−2
−26400%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 100−110 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50 0−1
Far Cry 5 100−105 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+11700%
1−2
−11700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80
+7800%
1−2
−7800%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 100−110 0−1

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 36 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 76
+443%
14−16
−443%
Metro Exodus 35−40 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70 0−1
Valorant 240−250
+24800%
1−2
−24800%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24 0−1
Far Cry 5 55−60 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 75−80 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+5600%
1−2
−5600%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 50−55
+2600%
2−3
−2600%

Full HD
High

Dota 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Dota 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how RX 8060S and HD 6250 compete in popular games:

  • RX 8060S is 1617% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 8060S is 24800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 8060S performs better in 22 tests (85%)
  • there's a draw in 4 tests (15%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 40.46 0.22
Recency 6 January 2025 31 January 2011

RX 8060S has a 18291% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 13 years.

The Radeon RX 8060S is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6250 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 8060S is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 6250 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.4 16 votes

Rate Radeon RX 8060S on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 92 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 8060S or Radeon HD 6250, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.