AMD Radeon R7 250 vs AMD Radeon R7 M350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database shows a single head-to-head comparison between these two GPUs, and it is a decisive one for the desktop part. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557, while the AMD Radeon R7 M350 scores 6991. This gives the R7 250 a win with a delta of 8.1 percent. In practical terms, the R7 250 is roughly eight percent faster in raw compute throughput, which is a meaningful margin when both cards are near the lower end of the performance spectrum.

Looking at the broader context, the R7 250's score of 7557 places it at the 41st percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals paint an interesting picture: it is essentially tied with the Intel Arc A310, which scores 7550 and trails by just 0.1 percent. It also edges out the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, which scores 7580 and is 0.3 percent behind the R7 250, meaning the R7 250 actually loses to that card by a hair. Against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, the R7 250 is 1.1 percent ahead, and against the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, it is 1.5 percent ahead. These deltas are all within a couple of percentage points, which suggests the R7 250 is sitting in a tightly contested cluster of low-end and older GPUs.

The R7 M350, meanwhile, scores 6991 in OpenCL and has an additional Vulkan result of 5662. Its average benchmark score across both tests is 6327, which pulls its percentile down to 36. The nearest rivals for the M350 show a similar clustering: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 6330 and has a delta of 0 percent, meaning a tie. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 scores 6282 and is 0.7 percent behind. Two high-end desktop NVIDIA cards, the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, both score 6270 and are 0.9 percent behind the M350. This is a curious grouping, but the data is clear: the M350's OpenCL result is its strongest showing, while its Vulkan score drags the average down considerably.

The direct comparison between the two AMD cards shows that the R7 250 wins the only shared benchmark. The 8.1 percent delta is not enormous, but it is consistent and reproducible. For users looking at compute workloads, the R7 250 has a clear edge. The M350's Vulkan score of 5662 is not directly comparable to the R7 250 since the latter has no Vulkan result recorded, but it indicates that the M350's architectural changes did not translate into superior performance in this specific metric.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's graphics core next architecture. The R7 250 is built on GCN 1.0 and uses the Cape Verde chip, belonging to the Volcanic Islands generation under the R7 200 series. The R7 M350 uses GCN 3.0 with the Meso chip and belongs to the Gem System generation under the R7 M300 series. This generational leap is significant, but it does not automatically translate to higher performance.

Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The transistor counts are close: the R7 250 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the M350 has 1,550 million on a 125 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical at 12.2M per mm² for the R7 250 and 12.4M per mm² for the M350. The slight increase in transistors and die size for the M350 suggests a modest refinement rather than a major redesign.

The compute resources tell a different story. The R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operations pipelines. The M350 has fewer of each: 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This reduction in execution resources explains why the newer architecture does not outperform the older one in raw compute. The R7 250's pixel rate is 14.80 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 29.60 GTexel/s. The M350's rates are lower at 8.120 GPixel/s and 24.36 GTexel/s respectively. In floating point, the R7 250 delivers 947.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the M350 delivers 779.5 GFLOPS. Interestingly, the M350 has an FP16 rating of 779.5 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not gain any throughput advantage from half-precision work.

Memory configuration also diverges sharply. The R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The M350 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a much narrower 64-bit bus, giving it only 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite having four times the capacity, the M350 has nearly half the bandwidth. The memory clocks are 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the R7 250 and 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the M350. The higher clock does not compensate for the narrower bus.

Clock speeds for the R7 250 are not listed in the database, while the M350 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz. The interface also differs: the R7 250 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the M350 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. This halves the potential data transfer rate between the GPU and the host system for the M350.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute tasks?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 8.1 percent higher than the R7 M350's score of 6991. This makes the R7 250 the clear winner in compute workloads.

Q: Does the R7 M350 have any benchmark advantage over the R7 250?

A: No. In the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, the R7 M350 loses. However, the M350 does have a Vulkan score of 5662, which is not measured for the R7 250, so a direct comparison in that API cannot be made.

Q: Why does the R7 250 outperform the R7 M350 despite being older?

A: The R7 250 has more execution resources: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the M350. It also has a wider 128-bit memory bus offering 28.80 GB/s, nearly double the M350's 16.00 GB/s.

Q: What are the memory capacities of each card?

A: The R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory, while the R7 M350 has 4 GB of DDR3. The M350 has more capacity but significantly lower bandwidth due to its 64-bit bus.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products?

A: Yes. Both the R7 250 and the R7 M350 have a production status of end-of-life in the database.

Q: How do their DirectX feature levels compare?

A: The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 with feature level 11_1, while the R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_0. The M350 has a higher feature level despite being slower in compute.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 250 | AMD Radeon R7 M350 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Chip | Cape Verde | Meso |

| Generation | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) | Gem System (R7 M300) |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1015 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 16.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 384 |

| TMUs | 32 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.80 GPixel/s | 8.120 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 29.60 GTexel/s | 24.36 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 947.2 GFLOPS | 779.5 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Not listed |

| Power Connectors | None | Not listed |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | Not listed |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | Not listed |

| Release Date | October 2013 | May 2015 |

| Predecessor | Sea Islands | Solar System |

| Successor | Pirate Islands | Polaris Mobile |

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon R7 250 as the stronger performer in compute tasks. Its OpenCL score of 7557 versus 6991 for the M350, an 8.1 percent advantage, is the only direct benchmark available, and it is unambiguous. The R7 250 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 41 versus 36 for the M350, meaning it sits above a larger share of the database's GPU population.

The R7 250's advantages are structural. It has more shading units, more TMUs, double the ROPs, and more than 1.7 times the memory bandwidth. Its FP32 output of 947.2 GFLOPS exceeds the M350's 779.5 GFLOPS by roughly 21 percent, which is a larger gap than the OpenCL score suggests. The M350 does have a higher DirectX feature level (12_0 versus 11_1) and four times the memory capacity, but these features do not compensate for the raw throughput deficit.

The M350 is a mobile-oriented part, as indicated by its Meso chip and Gem System generation. Its lower power draw is not listed, but the absence of a TDP figure and the narrower PCIe x8 interface suggest it was designed for lighter workloads. The R7 250, with its 55 W TDP and single-slot form factor, is a desktop card that fits into a standard PCIe x16 slot with no auxiliary power connectors.

For anyone choosing between these two, the R7 250 is the better choice for compute-heavy tasks such as OpenCL-accelerated applications. The M350 might be preferable if the user needs more memory capacity or requires DirectX 12 feature level 12_0 support, but those are narrow use cases. In the recorded benchmarks, the R7 250 wins the only contest that matters.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 250 wins in raw compute performance. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 7557 is 8.1 percent higher than the M350's 6991. It also wins in pixel throughput, delivering 14.80 GPixel/s versus 8.120 GPixel/s, and in texture throughput at 29.60 GTexel/s versus 24.36 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s is nearly double the M350's 16.00 GB/s, which helps in bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The R7 250 also has a wider bus (128-bit versus 64-bit) and more execution units across the board.

The AMD Radeon R7 M350 wins in memory capacity, offering 4 GB versus the R7 250's 1024 MB. This could matter for applications that need larger framebuffers or datasets that fit within GPU memory. It also supports DirectX 12 feature level 12_0, a higher spec than the R7 250's 11_1. The M350 has a slightly higher transistor count (1,550 million versus 1,500 million) and a newer architecture generation (GCN 3.0 versus GCN 1.0), though this does not translate to performance gains in the recorded data. Its 1:1 FP16 ratio means it can handle half-precision workloads without penalty, though its FP16 output equals its FP32 output at 779.5 GFLOPS.

Use-case split: the R7 250 is for users prioritizing compute speed, fill rates, and memory bandwidth. The M350 is for users who need more memory or a higher DirectX feature level and are willing to accept lower compute performance. In the database's head-to-head results, the R7 250 takes the only win.