NVIDIA GeForce MX250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce MX250 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M 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 3 year(s) 11 month(s) later
• Around 3% higher core clock speed: 937 MHz vs 914 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• 7.5x lower typical power consumption: 10 Watt vs 75 Watt
• 2.4x more memory clock speed: 6008 MHz vs 1000 or 2500 MHz
• Around 11% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 240 vs 217
• Around 11% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 46.992 vs 42.396
• Around 43% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 535.24 vs 373.644
• Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.64 vs 2.54
• Around 13% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 44.7 vs 39.412
• Around 2% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 141.816 vs 139.158

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M

• Around 8% higher boost clock speed: 1124 MHz vs 1038 MHz
• Around 67% higher pipelines: 640 vs 384
• Around 8% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2577 vs 2392
• Around 4% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 9744 vs 9329
• Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4148 vs 4027
• Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4148 vs 4027
• 3.8x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3350 vs 888

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX250
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	2392 2577
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	240 217
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	9329 9744
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	46.992 42.396
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	535.24 373.644
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2.64 2.54
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	44.7 39.412
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	141.816 139.158
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4027 4148
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3710 3715
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3357 3358
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4027 4148
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3710 3715
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3357 3358
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	888 3350

Compare specifications (specs)