AMD Radeon R7 250 vs AMD Radeon R7 M370 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single direct comparison between these two GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that measurement, the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557, while the AMD Radeon R7 M370 scores 7063. This gives the R7 250 a 7% advantage in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL. That is a meaningful gap for two products that otherwise share the same GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm manufacturing process, but it is not a landslide. The R7 250 wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the database, taking the sole win in the win tally (1 win for the R7 250, 0 for the R7 M370).

The delta becomes more informative when viewed through each card's nearest rivals. The R7 250 sits at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7557. Its closest competitor, the Intel Arc A310, scores 7550, a difference of just 0.1%. That means the R7 250 is effectively tied with the Arc A310 in aggregate performance. The R7 250 is also 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (which scores 7472) and 1.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (which scores 7447). The only rival that edges it out is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100, which scores 7580, putting the R7 250 0.3% behind.

The R7 M370, by contrast, sits at the 38th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 6764. That average is pulled down by its second benchmark result: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6465. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M5100 at 6830 (the R7 M370 trails by 1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 at 6698 (the R7 M370 leads by 1%), the AMD Radeon R7 M460 at 6612 (a 2.3% lead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M at 6946 (a 2.6% deficit). The R7 M370 therefore sits in a tight cluster around 6.6-6.9 thousand points, while the R7 250 sits in a slightly higher cluster around 7.4-7.6 thousand points.

The practical interpretation: the R7 250 outperforms the R7 M370 by roughly the same margin that separates the R7 M370 from the GeForce GT 1010. That is not a negligible difference in real-world compute tasks, but it is also within the range where driver optimizations and workload characteristics could shift the outcome on specific applications. The OpenCL test measures general-purpose compute, not gaming frame rates or texture throughput, so the 7% delta should be read as a compute-performance indicator rather than a universal performance verdict.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU scores higher in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557, which is 7% higher than the R7 M370's 7063 in the same test.

Q: Does the R7 M370 have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. The database records two benchmarks for the R7 M370 (OpenCL and Vulkan), but the only head-to-head comparison available is OpenCL, where the R7 250 wins. The R7 M370's Vulkan score of 6465 has no direct counterpart for the R7 250.

Q: How does the R7 250 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The R7 250 is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 (7550), 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472), 1.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447), and 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580).

Q: How does the R7 M370 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The R7 M370 trails the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830) by 1%, leads the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6698) by 1%, leads the AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6612) by 2.3%, and trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946) by 2.6%.

Q: What percentile ranking does each GPU hold?

A: The R7 250 is at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, while the R7 M370 is at the 38th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The R7 250 has an average benchmark score of 7557, compared to the R7 M370's average of 6764. The R7 M370's average is lower than its OpenCL score because the Vulkan result (6465) is included in the average.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 250 wins in raw compute performance, as measured by the OpenCL benchmark. Its 7557 score places it 7% above the R7 M370 in the only direct comparison available. This advantage likely stems from its higher shading unit count (512 vs. 384) and higher pixel and texture rates, which are detailed in the specification section. For tasks that rely on general-purpose GPU compute, such as OpenCL-accelerated workloads, the R7 250 is the stronger choice.

The R7 M370, despite losing the compute benchmark, has attributes that favor certain use cases. Its memory configuration is notably different: it ships with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory and a memory bandwidth of 57.60 GB/s, exactly double the bandwidth of the R7 250's DDR3 memory at 28.80 GB/s. In scenarios where memory capacity or bandwidth matters more than raw shading throughput, the R7 M370 could hold an advantage. The R7 M370 also has a Vulkan benchmark result (6465), indicating that it has been validated for Vulkan workloads, whereas no Vulkan score is recorded for the R7 250.

The R7 250 also wins on efficiency metrics, with a TDP of 55 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R7 M370 has no recorded TDP, so no direct efficiency comparison is possible from the data. However, the R7 250's lower transistor count (1,500 million vs. 950 million) and larger die (123 mm² vs. 77 mm²) suggest a different design tradeoff: more compute resources at higher power, versus a smaller, more power-lean chip for mobile contexts. The R7 M370 is part of the Gem System (R7 M300) generation and is typically a mobile-class part, while the R7 250 is a desktop card from the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specification areas. The R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip, while the R7 M370 uses the Litho chip. Both use TSMC's 28 nm process, but the R7 250 packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, whereas the R7 M370 has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical: 12.2M per mm² for the R7 250 and 12.3M per mm² for the R7 M370.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The R7 250 has no recorded base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The R7 M370 has a base clock of 875 MHz and a boost clock of 960 MHz, with memory also at 900 MHz but at 3.6 Gbps effective, twice the effective data rate.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 M370 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 128-bit bus, yielding 57.60 GB/s bandwidth, exactly double.

Compute resources also differ. The R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R7 M370 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s for the R7 250, versus 7.680 GPixel/s and 23.04 GTexel/s for the R7 M370. FP32 throughput is 947.2 GFLOPS for the R7 250 and 737.3 GFLOPS for the R7 M370.

Other differences include the bus interface: the R7 250 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R7 M370 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The R7 250 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 55 W TDP, plus a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R7 M370 has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connector, or PSU recommendation. The R7 250 also has display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), while the R7 M370 has no recorded display outputs. Release dates differ: the R7 250 launched on 2013-10-07, and the R7 M370 on 2015-05-04.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture, but they belong to different generations and use different chips. The R7 250 is from the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation, using the Cape Verde chip. The R7 M370 is from the Gem System (R7 M300) generation, using the Litho chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on the same 28 nm node, but the die sizes differ considerably: 123 mm² for the R7 250 versus 77 mm² for the R7 M370. The transistor count is 1,500 million versus 950 million, respectively, which yields nearly identical transistor densities (12.2M and 12.3M per mm²).

The architectural differences are primarily in resource allocation, not in the underlying instruction set. The R7 250 allocates more of its die to shading units (512), TMUs (32), and ROPs (16). The R7 M370 halves the ROP count to 8 and reduces shading units to 384 and TMUs to 24. This explains the R7 250's higher pixel and texture rates despite the R7 M370's higher memory bandwidth.

The memory subsystem differs at the interface level. The R7 250 uses DDR3 with an effective data rate of 1800 Mbps, while the R7 M370 uses GDDR5 with an effective data rate of 3.6 Gbps. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the GDDR5 memory on the R7 M370 delivers double the bandwidth. The R7 M370 also has twice the memory capacity (2 GB vs. 1 GB).

The API support is identical: both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The R7 M370's recorded Vulkan score (6465) suggests it has been tested under that API, while no Vulkan result exists for the R7 250 in the database.

The production status for both is end-of-life. The R7 250's predecessor is listed as Sea Islands and its successor as Pirate Islands. The R7 M370's predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but modest winner in compute performance: the AMD Radeon R7 250. Its OpenCL score of 7557 is 7% higher than the R7 M370's 7063, and it holds the 41st percentile overall versus the R7 M370's 38th. The R7 250 also has more shading units (512 vs. 384), more TMUs (32 vs. 24), more ROPs (16 vs. 8), and higher pixel, texture, and FP32 rates. For anyone choosing between these two strictly on compute throughput, the R7 250 is the better pick.

The R7 M370 is not without its own strengths. It doubles the memory capacity (2 GB vs. 1 GB) and doubles the memory bandwidth (57.60 GB/s vs. 28.80 GB/s) thanks to GDDR5 memory. It also has a recorded Vulkan score, which the R7 250 lacks. In workloads that are memory-bound rather than compute-bound, or that specifically leverage Vulkan, the R7 M370 could close the gap or potentially overtake the R7 250. The R7 M370's smaller die (77 mm²) and lower transistor count (950 million) also suggest it is designed for a more constrained power envelope, though no TDP is recorded for it.

The verdict depends on the use case. For general compute, OpenCL-accelerated tasks, and desktop use with multiple display outputs, the R7 250 is the data-supported choice. For mobile or embedded contexts where memory bandwidth and capacity are paramount, and where a Vulkan-tested part is preferred, the R7 M370 holds the advantage. The R7 250 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, but the R7 M370's memory subsystem makes it a viable alternative in specific scenarios. The database records one win for the R7 250 and zero for the R7 M370, but the R7 M370's separate Vulkan result indicates it has been validated for an additional API that the R7 250 has not been measured under.