AMD Radeon 880M vs AMD Radeon R7 250 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the AMD Radeon 880M and the AMD Radeon R7 250 in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The 880M scores 31,285 points against the R7 250's 7,557 points, a 314% advantage. That is not an incremental gain; it is a generational leap expressed in raw compute throughput. The integrated Radeon 880M, despite sharing system memory and drawing a fraction of the power, more than quadruples the dedicated R7 250's OpenCL output.

This single head-to-head result aligns with the broader average benchmark data. The Radeon 880M carries an average benchmark score of 8,436 across all recorded tests, while the R7 250 averages 7,557. The 880M also holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs: 43rd percentile versus 41st for the R7 250. While those percentiles are close, the OpenCL gap shows that in compute-heavy workloads, the 880M is in a different class.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card reinforces the context. The 880M's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX, which scores 8,427 (a 0.1% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 at 8,458 (a -0.3% delta). The R7 250's nearest rival is the Intel Arc A310 at 7,550 (0.1% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 at 7,580 (-0.3% delta). In essence, the 880M sits alongside older high-end mobile GPUs, while the R7 250 sits with low-end modern cards. The data suggests the 880M's compute advantage is not merely academic; it places the integrated part in a performance tier that the R7 250 cannot reach.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M wins with a score of 31,285 versus the AMD Radeon R7 250's 7,557, a 314% difference.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Radeon 880M has an average benchmark score of 8,436, while the Radeon R7 250 has an average of 7,557. The 880M is ahead by roughly 879 points.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Radeon 880M ranks in the 43rd percentile, while the Radeon R7 250 ranks in the 41st percentile.

Q: What is the R7 250's closest rival according to the database?

A: The Intel Arc A310, with an average score of 7,550 and a delta of 0.1% from the R7 250's 7,557.

Q: Does the R7 250 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head data, the Radeon 880M wins the only common test (Geekbench OpenCL), and the R7 250 has zero wins.

Q: Is the R7 250 still in production?

A: No, the R7 250 is marked as end-of-life, while the Radeon 880M is listed as active.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different eras of AMD's design philosophy. The Radeon 880M is built on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point mobile chips. In contrast, the Radeon R7 250 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, a 28 nm process, and the Volcanic Islands generation (R7 200 series). The process node alone explains much of the efficiency and performance differential: 4 nm versus 28 nm is a massive reduction in feature size, allowing the 880M to pack 34,000 million transistors into a 233 mm² die, while the R7 250 fits only 1,500 million transistors into 123 mm². Transistor density tells the story: 145.9 million per mm² for the 880M versus 12.2 million per mm² for the R7 250.

The Radeon 880M features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units, alongside 12 ray tracing cores. The R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing support. The compute rates reflect the architectural gap: the 880M delivers 4.454 TFLOPS FP32 and 4.454 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the R7 250 manages 947.2 GFLOPS FP32 and has no recorded FP16 capability. Pixel and texture fill rates are similarly lopsided: 46.40 GPixel/s and 139.2 GTexel/s for the 880M, versus 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s for the R7 250.

Memory architecture diverges sharply as well. The 880M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The R7 250 has dedicated 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. API support also differs: the 880M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 250 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 880M's ray tracing cores and newer API baseline make it far more future-proof for modern games and compute workloads.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon 880M is the superior GPU in every measurable category: it wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 314%, has a higher average benchmark score (8,436 versus 7,557), a higher percentile (43 versus 41), a more advanced architecture (RDNA 3.5 versus GCN 1.0), a smaller process node (4 nm versus 28 nm), more shading units (768 versus 512), and a higher FP32 throughput (4.454 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS). The R7 250's only advantages are its dedicated memory (1024 MB DDR3 versus system shared) and a lower power draw in terms of absolute TDP, though the 880M's 15 W TDP is actually far lower than the R7 250's 55 W.

Who should pick which? For anyone seeking modern compute performance, ray tracing support, or efficiency in a mobile or integrated context, the 880M is the only rational choice. The R7 250, being end-of-life, is a legacy part from 2013. Its 28 nm process, lack of ray tracing, and older GCN architecture make it a poor fit for contemporary workloads. The data suggests the 880M belongs to a performance tier that the R7 250 cannot approach, despite the latter's dedicated VRAM.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights the fields where the two GPUs diverge:

| Field | AMD Radeon 880M | AMD Radeon R7 250 |

|-------|----------------|-------------------|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 34,000 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 233 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 145.9M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 400 MHz | None recorded |

| Boost Clock | 2900 MHz | None recorded |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 512 |

| TMUs | 48 | 32 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 12 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 46.40 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 139.2 GTexel/s | 29.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.454 TFLOPS | 947.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.454 TFLOPS (1:1) | None recorded |

| TDP | 15 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None recorded | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | None recorded | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2024-07-14 | 2013-10-07 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | Sea Islands |

| Successor | None | Pirate Islands |

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 880M wins in virtually every workload category implied by the data. Its FP32 throughput of 4.454 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS means raw compute tasks, such as OpenCL-based rendering or physics simulation, will favor the 880M overwhelmingly. The 314% OpenCL delta confirms this. Its 12 ray tracing cores give it hardware-accelerated ray tracing, which the R7 250 lacks entirely. The 880M's higher texture rate (139.2 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (46.40 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s) suggest it handles texture-heavy and fill-rate-bound scenes much better. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 also indicate compatibility with modern graphics APIs, while the R7 250's DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170 lag behind.

The R7 250's wins are narrower and more situational. It has dedicated 1024 MB of DDR3 memory, which means it does not depend on system RAM bandwidth. In scenarios where system memory is slow or heavily contended, the R7 250's 28.80 GB/s dedicated bandwidth could provide more consistent performance, albeit at a much lower overall level. Its 55 W TDP is higher than the 880M's 15 W, but for a desktop card with a 250 W suggested PSU, it offers a simple plug-and-play solution for legacy systems. The R7 250 also has a fixed set of display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), whereas the 880M's outputs are portable device dependent. For older software that relies on GCN-era optimizations, the R7 250 might edge out the 880M in compatibility, but the recorded benchmark data offers no evidence of such a win. In short, the 880M dominates all measured metrics, and the R7 250's remaining advantages are limited to its dedicated memory and legacy interface options.