AMD Radeon 550X vs AMD Radeon R7 250 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two cards cleanly in favor of the newer AMD Radeon 550X. In the single recorded head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, the 550X posts 8866 points against 7557 for the R7 250, a 17.3% advantage. That is the only overlapping benchmark in the database, so the win count stands at 1 for the 550X and 0 for the R7 250.

The R7 250 does not win any recorded comparison. Its average benchmark score of 7557 places it in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the 550X sits at the 45th percentile with an average of 8918. The gap in percentiles is modest, but the raw score difference is substantial for two cards that share the same core count and texture unit count.

For use-case planning, the 550X is the card to pick for OpenCL compute workloads. The recorded data shows it beating the R7 250 by nearly a fifth in that specific test. The R7 250 remains functional for basic display output and light 3D work, but nothing in the measurements suggests it outpaces the 550X anywhere. The 550X also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 8970, which is slightly higher than its OpenCL result, indicating consistent performance across different API workloads. The R7 250 has no recorded Vulkan score, so cross-API comparison is limited to OpenCL.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations of AMD graphics design. The Radeon 550X uses the Lexa chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, belonging to the Polaris (RX 500X) generation. The Radeon R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip on GCN 1.0, part of the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. This is roughly two architectural generations apart, which explains much of the performance difference despite similar shader counts.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The 550X is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the R7 250 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die sizes tell an interesting story: the 550X packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 21.4M per mm². The R7 250 has 1,500 million transistors on a larger 123 mm² die, with a density of only 12.2M per mm². The newer process allows roughly 75% more transistors in a physically smaller package.

Both cards have 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The core configuration is identical on paper, but the clock speeds and memory subsystems differ. The 550X has a base clock of 1082 MHz and a boost clock of 1218 MHz. The R7 250 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, so direct clock comparison is not possible from the data.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The 550X uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 250 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on the same 128 bit bus, but only manages 28.80 GB/s. That is nearly a 4x bandwidth difference in favor of the 550X. Memory clock rates are recorded as 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the 550X and 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the R7 250.

API support differs as well. The 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Vulkan revision is newer on the 550X, which matters for modern workloads. The 550X also has a 1:1 FP16 ratio at 1,247.2 GFLOPS, while the R7 250 has no recorded FP16 capability. FP32 performance is 1,247.2 GFLOPS for the 550X versus 947.2 GFLOPS for the R7 250.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct comparison between these two cards. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon 550X scores 8866, and the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557. The 550X wins by 17.3%. To put that in context, the 550X is 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 in its nearest rival group and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660. The R7 250, by comparison, sits 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 in its own rival grouping.

The 17.3% delta in OpenCL is the headline number. A card with identical shader counts, TMUs, and ROPs should not be that far apart, but the memory subsystem and clock architecture change everything. The 550X has 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s for the R7 250, and that bandwidth advantage shows up directly in compute workloads.

The 550X also has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 8970. That is 104 points higher than its OpenCL score, or about 1.2% better. This suggests the card handles Vulkan compute slightly better than OpenCL, which is useful information for developers targeting modern API choice. The R7 250 has no Vulkan score recorded, so there is no way to know if it would follow the same pattern.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The 550X averages 8918 across its recorded tests, while the R7 250 averages 7557. The 550X sits at the 45th percentile of all GPUs, and the R7 250 at the 41st. The percentile difference is small in absolute terms, but the score gap is consistent across all recorded data.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon 550X scores 8866 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 7557 for the R7 250, a 17.3% advantage.

Q: Do these cards have the same shader configuration?

A: Yes, both have 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The performance difference comes from clocks, memory, and architecture generation.

Q: How different is the memory bandwidth?

A: The 550X delivers 112.0 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus. The R7 250 delivers 28.80 GB/s from 1024 MB of DDR3 on the same 128 bit bus.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What process nodes are these cards built on?

A: The 550X uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die. The R7 250 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die.

Q: How does the 550X compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 550X is 0.6% ahead of the Radeon Pro WX 5100 and 0.8% ahead of the Radeon R9 M265X. It trails the GeForce GTX 660 by 1.2% and the TITAN V CEO Edition by 1.3%.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every category except core counts and bus width. Process node is 14 nm for the 550X versus 28 nm for the R7 250. Transistor count is 2,200 million versus 1,500 million. Die size is 103 mm² versus 123 mm². The 550X has a base clock of 1082 MHz and a boost clock of 1218 MHz; the R7 250 has no recorded clocks.

Memory configuration is completely different. The 550X has 2 GB of GDDR5 with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth and a 1750 MHz memory clock (7 Gbps effective). The R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth and a 900 MHz memory clock (1800 Mbps effective). Both use a 128 bit bus.

Pixel and texture rates favor the 550X. It achieves 19.49 GPixel/s and 38.98 GTexel/s, while the R7 250 achieves 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,247.2 GFLOPS for the 550X versus 947.2 GFLOPS for the R7 250. FP16 is only recorded for the 550X at 1,247.2 GFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical dimensions differ. The 550X has a 50 W TDP and is dual-slot, while the R7 250 has a 55 W TDP and is single-slot. Both have no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The 550X is 145 mm (5.7 inches) long; the R7 250 is 168 mm (6.6 inches) long. The 550X uses PCIe 3.0 x8, and the R7 250 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Display outputs are similar but not identical. The 550X has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The R7 250 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The 550X supports newer display standards. Release dates are far apart: the 550X launched in March 2019, and the R7 250 launched in October 2013. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear choice: the AMD Radeon 550X is the superior card in every measured category. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 17.3%, has nearly 4x the memory bandwidth, higher FP32 performance, newer architecture, and better API support. The identical shader counts might suggest parity, but the 14 nm process, GDDR5 memory, and higher clocks separate them decisively.

The R7 250 is not without its merits. It has a lower TDP of 55 W versus 50 W for the 550X, though the difference is small. It is single-slot, which could matter in tight chassis, and it is 23 mm shorter than the 550X at 145 mm versus 168 mm. But these are minor physical advantages that do not offset the performance gap.

For compute workloads, the 550X is the only sensible pick. Its OpenCL score of 8866 and Vulkan score of 8970 place it in the 45th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 250 sits at the 41st percentile with a single recorded score of 7557. The nearest rival data confirms the 550X is competitive with mid-range cards like the GeForce GTX 660, trailing by only 1.2%, while the R7 250's best rival comparison is a 1.5% lead over the Radeon HD 8850M.

For legacy systems where the R7 250 is already installed, there is no urgent reason to upgrade if display output and basic 3D are all that is needed. But for anyone choosing between these two cards, the database is unambiguous: the 550X delivers a 17.3% performance advantage in compute, better memory bandwidth, and a newer feature set. The R7 250's only advantages are physical: single-slot cooling and a shorter card. Neither of those compensates for a 17.3% compute deficit and a memory subsystem that is nearly 4x slower.