AMD Radeon R7 250 vs ATI Radeon HD 5470
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R7 250 and ATI Radeon HD 5470 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 250
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 7 month(s) later
- 4.3x more texture fill rate: 22.4 GTexel / s vs 5.2 GTexel / s
- 4.8x more pipelines: 384 vs 80
- 6.9x better floating-point performance: 716.8 gflops vs 104.0 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 4x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 512 MB
- Around 44% higher memory clock speed: 1150 MHz vs 800 MHz
- 3.9x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1051 vs 268
- 3.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3170 vs 960
- Around 89% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 vs 1771
- 3.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3170 vs 960
- Around 89% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 vs 1771
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 8 October 2013 vs 13 February 2012 |
| Texture fill rate | 22.4 GTexel / s vs 5.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 80 |
| Floating-point performance | 716.8 gflops vs 104.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz vs 800 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1051 vs 268 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3170 vs 960 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 vs 1771 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3170 vs 960 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 vs 1771 |
Reasons to consider the ATI Radeon HD 5470
- 3.9x lower typical power consumption: 19 Watt vs 75 Watt
- Around 5% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 298 vs 283
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 19 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 298 vs 283 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 250
GPU 2: ATI Radeon HD 5470
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon R7 250 | ATI Radeon HD 5470 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1051 | 268 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 283 | 298 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 7525 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 20.161 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 304.279 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.655 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.046 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 96.934 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2179 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3170 | 960 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 1771 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2179 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3170 | 960 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 1771 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R7 250 | ATI Radeon HD 5470 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | TeraScale 2 |
| Code name | Oland | Cedar |
| Design | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Launch date | 8 October 2013 | 13 February 2012 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | |
| Place in performance rating | 1087 | 1089 |
| Price now | $78.34 | |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 27.62 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | |
| Floating-point performance | 716.8 gflops | 104.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 80 |
| Stream Processors | 384 | |
| Texture fill rate | 22.4 GTexel / s | 5.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,040 million | 292 million |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 170 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | N / A | None |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 6.4 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3 / GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon R7 250 with others
AMDRadeon R7 250 vs
NVIDIATesla M2090
AMDRadeon R7 250 vs
ATIRadeon HD 5470
AMDRadeon R7 250 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8350 OEM
AMDRadeon R7 250 vs
AMDFirePro M4150
AMDRadeon R7 250 vs
IntelIris Graphics 6100
AMDRadeon R7 250 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M500M
