NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti and NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 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 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- Around 50% higher pipelines: 192 vs 128
- Around 79% better floating-point performance: 691.2 gflops vs 387.1 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 55 nm
- Around 29% lower typical power consumption: 116 Watt vs 150 Watt
- 2.6x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1556 vs 592
- 7x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 379 vs 54
- Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3351 vs 3108
- Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3351 vs 3108
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 15 March 2011 vs 4 March 2009 |
Pipelines | 192 vs 128 |
Floating-point performance | 691.2 gflops vs 387.1 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 55 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 116 Watt vs 150 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1556 vs 592 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 379 vs 54 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3351 vs 3108 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3351 vs 3108 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
- Around 2% higher core clock speed: 1836 MHz vs 1800 MHz
- Around 64% higher texture fill rate: 47.2 billion / sec vs 28.8 billion / sec
- Around 7% higher memory clock speed: 1100 MHz vs 1026 MHz
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3351 vs 3322
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3351 vs 3322
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1836 MHz vs 1800 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 47.2 billion / sec vs 28.8 billion / sec |
Memory clock speed | 1100 MHz vs 1026 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3351 vs 3322 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3351 vs 3322 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
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 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1556 | 592 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 379 | 54 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5781 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 18.461 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 354.392 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.125 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 18.511 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 41.941 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2488 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3351 | 3108 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3322 | 3351 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2488 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3351 | 3108 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3322 | 3351 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 322 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Tesla |
Code name | GF116 | G92B |
Launch date | 15 March 2011 | 4 March 2009 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $199 |
Place in performance rating | 1049 | 1052 |
Price now | $287.59 | $114.99 |
Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Value for money (0-100) | 7.49 | 9.91 |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1836 MHz |
CUDA cores | 192 | 128 |
Floating-point performance | 691.2 gflops | 387.1 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | 105 °C |
Pipelines | 192 | 128 |
Texture fill rate | 28.8 billion / sec | 47.2 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 116 Watt | 150 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,170 million | 754 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Audio input for HDMI | Internal | S / PDIF |
Display Connectors | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI, 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI | 2x DVI, Two Dual Link DVI |
HDMI | ||
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | |
Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 8.25" (21 cm) | 9" (228.6 mm) (22.9 cm) |
SLI options | 2-way | 2-way3-way |
Supplementary power connectors | One 6-pin | 6-pin |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.2 | 3.0 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 98.4 GB / s | 70.4 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1026 MHz | 1100 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
DSR | ||
SLI |