AMD Radeon 540 vs AMD Radeon R7 250 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the AMD Radeon 540 and the AMD Radeon R7 250 is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisive. The R7 250 scores 7557, while the Radeon 540 scores 6184. That gives the R7 250 an 18.2% advantage in this workload. This is not a marginal gap; it is a substantial lead that places the older card clearly ahead in compute-oriented OpenCL tasks.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the Radeon 540 has a slight edge in average benchmark score. Its average across all tested workloads is 7673, compared to 7557 for the R7 250. This works out to a 1.5% difference in the 540's favor, as reflected in the nearestRivals deltaPct of 1.5 when comparing the 540 to the R7 250. However, this average is pulled up by the 540's Geekbench Vulkan result of 9162, a test the R7 250 does not have a recorded score for. The Vulkan score is significantly higher than the OpenCL score, indicating that the 540's architecture handles modern API workloads far better than legacy compute interfaces.

When placed against their respective nearest rivals, both cards sit in similar performance tiers. The Radeon 540's nearest rival by average score is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti at 7723, with the 540 trailing by 0.6%. It also sits 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580) and 1.6% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 (7550). The R7 250's nearest rival is the Intel Arc A310 at 7550, with the R7 250 ahead by just 0.1%. It also trails the Radeon Pro WX 3100 by 0.3% and leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 by 1.1% and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M by 1.5%. Both cards land at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, confirming that despite their generational gap, they occupy essentially the same performance class.

The head-to-head data reveals a clear split personality: the R7 250 wins the only direct comparison, but the 540 posts a much stronger result in a different API. The 18.2% OpenCL deficit for the 540 is notable, yet the 540's Vulkan score of 9162 suggests that in modern graphics workloads, it would likely reverse that outcome. The data does not include a Vulkan result for the R7 250, so a direct comparison in that API is impossible, but the magnitude of the 540's Vulkan score relative to its OpenCL score implies a significant architectural advantage in that area.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras of AMD's design philosophy. The Radeon 540 is built on GCN 4.0 architecture, using the Lexa chip, and belongs to the Polaris (RX 500) generation. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 2,200 million transistors packed into a 103 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the R7 250 uses GCN 1.0 architecture with the Cape Verde chip, from the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. It is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors on a larger 123 mm² die, giving a density of just 12.2 million per square millimeter.

The compute configuration tells a more nuanced story. The R7 250 actually has more shading units at 512, compared to 384 on the 540. It also has more texture mapping units: 32 versus 24. Both cards have 16 render output units. Despite having fewer shading units, the 540 achieves a higher pixel rate of 18.93 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s for the R7 250, thanks to its higher clock speeds. The texture rates are nearly identical, with the 540 at 28.39 GTexel/s and the R7 250 at 29.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is also close: 908.5 GFLOPS for the 540 versus 947.2 GFLOPS for the R7 250. The 540 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the R7 250 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The 540 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 32-bit bus, delivering 24.00 GB/s of bandwidth at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The R7 250 also has 1024 MB, but it is DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, providing 28.80 GB/s at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The R7 250's wider bus compensates for the slower memory type, resulting in higher raw bandwidth. The 540's narrower bus is a significant bottleneck, though the GDDR5 memory operates at a much higher effective speed.

Process node and manufacturing differences explain much of the performance characteristics. The 14 nm process allows the 540 to run at higher clocks with lower power draw, as evidenced by its 50 W TDP versus 55 W for the R7 250. The transistor count advantage for the 540 (2,200 million versus 1,500 million) is notable, but the R7 250's larger die area gives it more room for compute units. The 540 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the R7 250 uses the full x16 width, which can matter in bandwidth-sensitive applications.

# Where Each One Wins

The R7 250 wins decisively in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 7557 score versus 6184 for the 540 represents an 18.2% advantage, and this is the only direct head-to-head comparison available. This suggests that for applications leveraging OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computing, the older card is the better choice. The R7 250's higher shading unit count and wider memory bus likely contribute to this result, as OpenCL workloads often benefit from parallel compute units and memory throughput.

The Radeon 540 wins in modern API performance. Its Vulkan score of 9162 is substantially higher than its own OpenCL score, indicating that the architecture is optimized for newer graphics interfaces. While there is no Vulkan score for the R7 250, the 540's result in this area is strong enough to place its average benchmark score above the R7 250's. For gaming or applications that use Vulkan, the 540 is clearly the more capable card.

The 540 also wins in power efficiency. Its 50 W TDP is 5 W lower than the R7 250's 55 W, and this comes despite the 540 having access to a more advanced 14 nm process. The 540 also has a higher pixel rate, which suggests better performance in fill-rate-bound scenarios. In terms of display outputs, the 540 offers 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, supporting modern high-bandwidth displays, while the R7 250 offers a more limited set: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

For users with older software or compute workloads that rely on OpenCL, the R7 250 is the safer choice given its direct benchmark win. For users targeting modern graphics APIs or who need lower power consumption, the 540 is preferable. The 540 also supports Vulkan 1.3, while the R7 250 only supports Vulkan 1.2.170, which may matter for compatibility with the latest games and applications. DirectX support also differs: the 540 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), indicating a lower feature level for the older card.

# Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The chip and architecture are completely different: Lexa on GCN 4.0 for the 540 versus Cape Verde on GCN 1.0 for the R7 250. The process node is 14 nm for the 540 versus 28 nm for the R7 250. Transistor counts are 2,200 million versus 1,500 million, and die sizes are 103 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density is 21.4M per mm² for the 540 versus 12.2M per mm² for the R7 250.

Memory specifications diverge sharply. Both have 1024 MB, but the 540 uses GDDR5 on a 32-bit bus with 24.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 250 uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s. Memory clocks differ as well: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the 540 versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the R7 250. The compute units favor the R7 250 in count: 512 shading units and 32 TMUs versus 384 shading units and 24 TMUs for the 540. Both have 16 ROPs.

Clock-derived rates favor the 540 in pixel throughput (18.93 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s) but the R7 250 in texture rate (29.60 GTexel/s versus 28.39 GTexel/s). FP32 compute is slightly higher on the R7 250 at 947.2 GFLOPS versus 908.5 GFLOPS. The 540 has FP16 at 908.5 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the R7 250 has no FP16 support. TDP is 50 W for the 540 versus 55 W for the R7 250. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for the 540 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the R7 250.

Display outputs differ: the 540 has 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the R7 250 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. API support favors the 540 with DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, versus DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170 for the R7 250. The R7 250 has a recorded physical length of 168 mm (6.6 inches), while the 540 has no dimension data. Release dates are far apart: the 540 launched on 2017-04-19, while the R7 250 launched on 2013-10-07. The predecessors and successors also differ: the 540's predecessor is Arctic Islands and successor is Vega, while the R7 250's predecessor is Sea Islands and successor is Pirate Islands.

# FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 540 has an average benchmark score of 7673, which is 1.5% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 250's 7557.

Q: How much faster is the R7 250 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The R7 250 scores 7557 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Radeon 540 scores 6184, giving the R7 250 an 18.2% advantage.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory bandwidth?

A: No. The R7 250 has 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth using DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, while the Radeon 540 has 24.00 GB/s using GDDR5 on a 32-bit bus.

Q: Which card supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The Radeon 540 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the R7 250 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The Radeon 540 has a TDP of 50 W, while the R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W, making the 540 the lower-power option.

Q: Does the R7 250 have more shading units than the 540?

A: Yes, the R7 250 has 512 shading units, compared to 384 on the Radeon 540, despite the 540 being a newer generation.