GeForce MX250 vs Tegra X1
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 577 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 43.58 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GM20B | GP108B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | no data (2024 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 | 256 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 937 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1038 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,000 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 20 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 16.00 | 24.91 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.512 TFLOPS | 0.7972 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 16 | 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x4 |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| 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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 48.06 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 (6.4) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 20 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 10 Watt |
GeForce MX250 has a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Tegra X1 and GeForce MX250. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Tegra X1 is a desktop card while GeForce MX250 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
