AMD Radeon R7 250X vs AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R7 250X and AMD Radeon R9 260 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, 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 250X
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 month(s) later
- Around 6% lower typical power consumption: 80 Watt vs 85 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 25% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 637 vs 508
- 3.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3716 vs 971
- Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 1980
- 3.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3716 vs 971
- Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 1980
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 13 February 2014 vs 21 December 2013 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 80 Watt vs 85 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 637 vs 508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3716 vs 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 1980 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3716 vs 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 1980 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM
- Around 62% higher texture fill rate: 61.6 GTexel / s vs 38 GTexel / s
- Around 40% higher pipelines: 896 vs 640
- Around 62% better floating-point performance: 1,971 gflops vs 1,216 gflops
- 4x more memory clock speed: 6500 MHz vs 1625 MHz
- Around 34% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3048 vs 2269
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 61.6 GTexel / s vs 38 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 896 vs 640 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,971 gflops vs 1,216 gflops |
| Memory clock speed | 6500 MHz vs 1625 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3048 vs 2269 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 250X
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM
| 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 250X | AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2269 | 3048 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 637 | 508 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 32.22 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 638.532 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.963 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.987 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 151.963 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3916 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3716 | 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 1980 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3916 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3716 | 971 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 1980 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R7 250X | AMD Radeon R9 260 OEM | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 2.0 |
| Code name | Cape Verde | Bonaire |
| Design | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Launch date | 13 February 2014 | 21 December 2013 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99 | |
| Place in performance rating | 663 | 664 |
| Price now | $260.70 | |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 11.25 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | |
| Floating-point performance | 1,216 gflops | 1,971 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 896 |
| Stream Processors | 640 | |
| Texture fill rate | 38 GTexel / s | 61.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 80 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,500 million | 2,080 million |
| Core clock speed | 1100 MHz | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 210 mm | 183 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (12_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 104.0 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1625 MHz | 6500 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon R7 250X with others
AMDRadeon R7 250X vs
NVIDIAGeForce PCX 5900
AMDRadeon R7 250X vs
AMDRadeon HD 6990
AMDRadeon R7 250X vs
AMDRadeon R9 260 OEM
AMDRadeon R7 250X vs
AMDRadeon R9 360 OEM
AMDRadeon R7 250X vs
AMDFirePro W6150M
AMDRadeon R7 250X vs
AMDFirePro S7150
