AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 645 OEM

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R7 250 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 645 OEM 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 5 month(s) later
• 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
• Around 45% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 7525 vs 5202
• Around 46% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 20.161 vs 13.806
• Around 8% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.655 vs 1.535
• Around 9% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 30.046 vs 27.524
• 2.5x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 96.934 vs 38.664
• Around 52% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2179 vs 1435
• Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 vs 3300
• Around 52% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2179 vs 1435
• Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 vs 3300

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 645 OEM

• Around 77% higher texture fill rate: 39.55 GTexel / s vs 22.4 GTexel / s
• Around 50% higher pipelines: 576 vs 384
• Around 32% better floating-point performance: 949.2 gflops vs 716.8 gflops
• Around 15% lower typical power consumption: 65 Watt vs 75 Watt
• 3.5x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1150 MHz
• Around 79% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1883 vs 1051
• Around 51% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 428 vs 283
• Around 80% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 546.51 vs 304.279
• Around 11% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3531 vs 3170
• Around 11% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3531 vs 3170

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 250
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 645 OEM

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1051 1883
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	283 428
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	7525 5202
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	20.161 13.806
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	304.279 546.51
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.655 1.535
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	30.046 27.524
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	96.934 38.664
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2179 1435
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3170 3531
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3356 3300
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2179 1435
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3170 3531
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3356 3300

Compare specifications (specs)