AMD Radeon HD 8870M vs AMD Radeon R7 250 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the AMD Radeon HD 8870M takes a clear victory. The HD 8870M records a score of 8462, while the Radeon R7 250 trails at 7557. That is a 12% advantage for the mobile part, a meaningful gap in raw compute throughput. In absolute terms, the HD 8870M delivers 992.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 947.2 GFLOPS for the R7 250. The HD 8870M also leads in texture throughput: 31.00 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s.

However, the R7 250 has one notable counterpoint in the pixel rate column. The R7 250 achieves 14.80 GPixel/s, while the HD 8870M is limited to 12.40 GPixel/s. This is a 19% advantage for the R7 250 in fill-rate oriented workloads, despite losing the overall compute benchmark. The reason is clock behavior: the R7 250 runs its ROPs at a higher effective rate, even though its memory system is much slower. The HD 8870M’s win in the Geekbench OpenCL test is consistent with its larger shader array, 640 shading units versus 512, and its higher boost clock of 775 MHz.

Looking at the rival landscape, the HD 8870M sits within a tight cluster. Its nearest neighbor, the NVIDIA GeForce MX330, scores 8458, just 0.1% lower. The AMD Radeon 880M scores 8436, 0.3% lower. The Intel Arc A380 is the only nearby GPU that beats it, scoring 8558, 1.1% higher. The HD 8870M’s percentile rank of 43 places it in the lower-middle of all GPUs, but the delta to the next competitor is small. The R7 250 is positioned similarly, with a percentile of 41. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310, scores 7550, just 0.1% lower. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 scores 7580, 0.3% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7472, which is 1.1% lower than the R7 250. The HD 8850M, another AMD part, is 1.5% behind the R7 250.

The 12% delta between the two AMD parts is larger than any delta between either card and its immediate rivals. In fact, the HD 8870M’s lead over the R7 250 is more than ten times the 1.1% gap between the R7 250 and the GTX 1650. This suggests that the HD 8870M and the R7 250 are not interchangeable in compute tasks, despite sharing the same GCN 1.0 architecture and the same transistor budget.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8870M wins with a score of 8462, against 7557 for the Radeon R7 250, a 12% advantage.

Q: How does the R7 250 compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310?

A: The R7 250 scores 7557, while the Arc A310 scores 7550. The R7 250 is 0.1% faster, a statistical tie.

Q: Is the HD 8870M closer to the R7 250 or to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX330?

A: The HD 8870M scores 8462, and the MX330 scores 8458, a 0.1% difference. The gap to the R7 250 is much larger at 12%. The HD 8870M is far closer to the MX330 than to the R7 250.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Radeon R7 250 has a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s, compared to 12.40 GPixel/s for the HD 8870M. The R7 250 is 19% faster in this metric.

Q: What is the difference in shader units between the two cards?

A: The HD 8870M has 640 shading units, while the R7 250 has 512, a difference of 128 units in favor of the HD 8870M.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The HD 8870M has 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the R7 250 has 28.80 GB/s. The HD 8870M offers more than double the bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon HD 8870M is the clear winner for compute-heavy workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 12% higher, and it has more shading units, more TMUs, and higher FP32 throughput. The 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 992.0 GFLOPS FP32 make it the stronger choice for general-purpose GPU compute, OpenCL applications, and any task that scales with shader count. The memory subsystem also favors the HD 8870M: GDDR5 memory with 72.00 GB/s is a major advantage over the R7 250’s DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s. For workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive, such as large data transfers or high-resolution texture reads, the HD 8870M has a decisive edge.

The Radeon R7 250 wins only in the pixel fill rate category. Its 14.80 GPixel/s is notably higher than the 12.40 GPixel/s of the HD 8870M. This comes from the R7 250’s differently clocked ROPs. In games or applications that are heavily dependent on fill rate, such as low-resolution rendering with many overdraws or simple 2D compositing, the R7 250 could hold a slight edge. However, this win is narrow and does not translate into a higher overall benchmark score. The R7 250 also has a lower TDP of 55 W and no power connectors, making it a more power-frugal part, but that is not a performance win.

For most practical uses, the HD 8870M is the superior part. It wins the only recorded benchmark, and it wins on every core compute metric except pixel rate. The R7 250’s single victory is in a metric that does not dominate the OpenCL score. The HD 8870M is better for OpenCL compute, and the R7 250 is better for specific fill-bound scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two cards share the same process node, foundry, transistor count, and die size. Both use a 28 nm process at TSMC, integrate 1,500 million transistors, and have a die size of 123 mm². The transistor density is identical at 12.2M per mm². The bus interface is also the same: PCIe 3.0 x16.

The differences start with the memory. The HD 8870M has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3. Both use a 128 bit bus, but the effective memory speed is very different. The HD 8870M runs at 1125 MHz or 4.5 Gbps effective, while the R7 250 runs at 900 MHz or 1800 Mbps effective. This results in the HD 8870M having 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s for the R7 250. The HD 8870M also has a higher FP32 rating, 992.0 GFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS, and a higher texture rate, 31.00 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s. The pixel rate favors the R7 250 at 14.80 GPixel/s versus 12.40 GPixel/s.

The shading unit count differs as well. The HD 8870M has 640 shading units, while the R7 250 has 512. The TMU count is 40 for the HD 8870M and 32 for the R7 250. Both have 16 ROPs. The clock structure is not directly comparable because the R7 250 does not list a base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock. The HD 8870M lists a base of 725 MHz and a boost of 775 MHz.

The physical and electrical specifications differ. The R7 250 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a TDP of 55 W, and it requires a 250 W suggested PSU. The HD 8870M has no TDP listed. The R7 250 has a length of 168 mm or 6.6 inches, and its display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The HD 8870M does not list length or display outputs. The R7 250 also has an explicit power profile; the HD 8870M does not.

The APIs are identical for both parts: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both are end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, and they use chips that are very similar. The HD 8870M uses the Venus chip, while the R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip. Venus and Cape Verde are both 28 nm chips with the same transistor count and die size, so they are effectively the same silicon or near-identical variants. The architecture is the same generation of Graphics Core Next.

The difference in specifications comes from how the chips are configured. The HD 8870M enables 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, while the R7 250 disables some of the compute units to leave 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. This is a classic binning difference. Both chips have 16 ROPs, so the ROP count is unchanged. The HD 8870M is the fuller configuration of the silicon.

The memory architecture is the biggest architectural divergence. The HD 8870M pairs the chip with GDDR5 and a 128 bit interface at higher clock speeds, while the R7 250 uses DDR3. This changes the memory bandwidth by a huge margin: 72.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. The memory controller itself is the same, but the memory type and clock speed create dramatically different effective bandwidth. The HD 8870M also has a higher memory clock listed at 1125 MHz, while the R7 250 lists 900 MHz.

The core clock behavior is another difference. The HD 8870M has a boost clock of 775 MHz, which is above its base of 725 MHz. The R7 250 does not have a base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock. The absence of a listed core clock suggests a fixed or unlisted clock, but the pixel and texture rates of the R7 250 (14.80 GPixel/s, 29.60 GTexel/s) are consistent with a core clock that is lower than the HD 8870M’s boost clock. The HD 8870M’s pixel rate is lower despite having a higher core clock because it has fewer ROPs per clock or a different ROP-to-clock ratio.

In terms of feature support, the APIs are identical. The architecture is the same, so the instruction set and feature levels are the same. The HD 8870M has a higher FP32 throughput (992 vs 947), which comes from the higher shader count and higher clock. The R7 250 has a lower FP32 but a higher pixel rate, which is a peculiar distribution. This indicates that the two parts are tuned for different mixes of compute and fill.

The HD 8870M belongs to the Solar System generation of the HD 8800M series, while the R7 250 belongs to the Volcanic Islands generation of the R7 200 series. The predecessor and successor names differ as well: the HD 8870M’s predecessor is London and its successor is Gem System, while the R7 250’s predecessor is Sea Islands and its successor is Pirate Islands. These are marketing lineage markers, not architectural changes.

In summary, the architecture is the same GCN 1.0, but the HD 8870M has a fuller implementation with more compute units and a faster memory system, while the R7 250 is a partially disabled part with slower memory and a higher ROP clock. The result is that the HD 8870M wins compute benchmarks, and the R7 250 wins a single fill-rate metric. The measured data shows a clear overall winner.