NVIDIA GeForce MX250 vs AMD Radeon R9 290X

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce MX250 and AMD Radeon R9 290X 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 MX250

• Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 3 month(s) later
• Around 10% higher boost clock speed: 1038 MHz vs 947 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• 25x lower typical power consumption: 10 Watt vs 250 Watt
• 4.8x more memory clock speed: 6008 MHz vs 1250 MHz

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 290X

• 7.3x more pipelines: 2816 vs 384
• 3.6x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 8526 vs 2392
• 3.1x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 755 vs 240
• 4.7x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 43410 vs 9329
• 2.5x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 117.322 vs 46.992
• 4.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2460.464 vs 535.24
• 4.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 11.12 vs 2.64
• 2.7x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 120.942 vs 44.7
• 4.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 628.757 vs 141.816
• 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8729 vs 4027
• Around 90% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 7055 vs 3710
• 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8729 vs 4027
• Around 90% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 7055 vs 3710
• 4.4x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3932 vs 888

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX250
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 290X

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	2392 8526
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	240 755
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	9329 43410
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	46.992 117.322
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	535.24 2460.464
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2.64 11.12
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	44.7 120.942
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	141.816 628.757
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4027 8729
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3710 7055
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3357 3353
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4027 8729
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3710 7055
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3357 3353
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	888 3932

Compare specifications (specs)