AMD Radeon R7 250E vs NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R7 250E and NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT 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: 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, PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 250E
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 4 month(s) later
- 4.6x more pipelines: 512 vs 112
- 2.4x better floating-point performance: 819.2 gflops vs 336.0 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- Around 91% lower typical power consumption: 55 Watt vs 105 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 1 GB vs 512 MB
- 5x more memory clock speed: 4500 MHz vs 900 MHz
- Around 30% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3698 vs 2845
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3355 vs 3304
- Around 30% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3698 vs 2845
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3355 vs 3304
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 20 December 2013 vs 21 July 2008 |
| Pipelines | 512 vs 112 |
| Floating-point performance | 819.2 gflops vs 336.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 Watt vs 105 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 1 GB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 4500 MHz vs 900 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3698 vs 2845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 vs 3304 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3698 vs 2845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 vs 3304 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
- Around 88% higher core clock speed: 1500 MHz vs 800 MHz
- Around 31% higher texture fill rate: 33.6 billion / sec vs 25.6 GTexel / s
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz vs 800 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 33.6 billion / sec vs 25.6 GTexel / s |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 250E
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
| 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 250E | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT |
|---|---|---|
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 21.562 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 582.073 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.2 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 38.669 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 98.052 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2873 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3698 | 2845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 | 3304 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2873 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3698 | 2845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 | 3304 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 464 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 63 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R7 250E | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Tesla |
| Code name | Cape Verde | G92 |
| Launch date | 20 December 2013 | 21 July 2008 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | $160 |
| Place in performance rating | 1067 | 1069 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Price now | $103.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 8.86 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 819.2 gflops | 336.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 512 | 112 |
| Texture fill rate | 25.6 GTexel / s | 33.6 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 Watt | 105 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,500 million | 754 million |
| CUDA cores | 112 | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, HDTVDual Link DVI |
| Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 9" (22.9 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |
| SLI options | 2-way | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB / s | 57.6 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4500 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon R7 250E with others
AMDRadeon R7 250E vs
NVIDIAGeForce4 MX 440-SE
AMDRadeon R7 250E vs
NVIDIAGeForce FX Go5300
AMDRadeon R7 250E vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 1400
AMDRadeon R7 250E vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9800 GT
AMDRadeon R7 250E vs
NVIDIAQuadro K3100M
AMDRadeon R7 250E vs
AMDFirePro W4190M
