NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M vs AMD Radeon R7 250
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M and AMD Radeon R7 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 980M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 0 year(s) 11 month(s) later
- Around 7% higher boost clock speed: 1127 MHz vs 1050 MHz
- 2.3x more texture fill rate: 51.84 GTexel / s vs 22.4 GTexel / s
- 4x more pipelines: 1536 vs 384
- 2.3x better floating-point performance: 1,659 gflops vs 716.8 gflops
- 4x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 2 GB
- 2.2x more memory clock speed: 2500 MHz vs 1150 MHz
- 7x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 7351 vs 1051
- Around 73% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 491 vs 283
- 3.2x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 23826 vs 7525
- 4.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 92.634 vs 20.161
- 3.8x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1146.534 vs 304.279
- 4.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.776 vs 1.655
- 3.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 308.42 vs 96.934
- 4.9x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10572 vs 2179
- Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3695 vs 3170
- 4.9x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10572 vs 2179
- Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3695 vs 3170
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 7 October 2014 vs 8 October 2013 |
| Boost clock speed | 1127 MHz vs 1050 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 51.84 GTexel / s vs 22.4 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1536 vs 384 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,659 gflops vs 716.8 gflops |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB vs 2 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz vs 1150 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 7351 vs 1051 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 491 vs 283 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 23826 vs 7525 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 92.634 vs 20.161 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1146.534 vs 304.279 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.776 vs 1.655 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 308.42 vs 96.934 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10572 vs 2179 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3695 vs 3170 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10572 vs 2179 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3695 vs 3170 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 250
- Around 33% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 100 Watt
- Around 63% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 30.046 vs 18.431
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 100 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.046 vs 18.431 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 vs 3342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 vs 3342 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 250
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M | AMD Radeon R7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 7351 | 1051 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 491 | 283 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 23826 | 7525 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 92.634 | 20.161 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1146.534 | 304.279 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.776 | 1.655 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 18.431 | 30.046 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 308.42 | 96.934 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10572 | 2179 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3695 | 3170 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3342 | 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10572 | 2179 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3695 | 3170 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3342 | 3356 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 649 | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M | AMD Radeon R7 250 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Code name | GM204 | Oland |
| Launch date | 7 October 2014 | 8 October 2013 |
| Place in performance rating | 462 | 1087 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | |
| Price now | $78.34 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 27.62 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1127 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 1038 MHz | |
| CUDA cores | 1536 | |
| Floating-point performance | 1,659 gflops | 716.8 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1536 | 384 |
| Texture fill rate | 51.84 GTexel / s | 22.4 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Transistor count | 5,200 million | 1,040 million |
| Stream Processors | 384 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | 1 | |
| G-SYNC support | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA аnalog display support | 1 | |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Laptop size | large | |
| SLI options | 1 | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | N / A |
| Length | 168 mm | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB / s | 72 GB/s |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 / GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M with others
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 980M vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 4350
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 980M vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 5165
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 980M vs
AMDRadeon HD 7970
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 980M vs
AMDRadeon HD 7870 GHz Edition
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 980M vs
AMDRadeon R9 M395X
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 980M vs
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 3060 Ti GDDR6X
