AMD Radeon R7 250 vs AMD Radeon R7 M460 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon R7 250 compare to the AMD Radeon R7 M460 in raw compute performance?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the R7 250 scores 7557, while the R7 M460 scores 6612. That gives the R7 250 a 14.3% lead in this workload.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The R7 250 has a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the R7 M460’s 8.192 GPixel/s. This indicates a large advantage for the R7 250 in pixel processing throughput.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The R7 250 packs 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M460 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a narrower 64-bit bus, but delivers higher bandwidth at 36.00 GB/s.

Q: How do the two GPUs differ in shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The R7 250 features 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. The R7 M460 has fewer resources: 384 shading units and 24 TMUs. This difference helps explain the R7 250’s higher floating-point output.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer DirectX version?

A: The R7 M460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), whereas the R7 250 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes for these two chips?

A: The R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The R7 M460 uses the Meso chip with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear overall winner: the AMD Radeon R7 250. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 7557 versus 6612 for the R7 M460 represents a 14.3% margin in the recorded test. Looking at the percentile standings, the R7 250 sits at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, while the R7 M460 sits at the 38th percentile. The R7 250 also wins the sole head-to-head benchmark in the database, taking the only recorded win between the two.

The R7 250’s advantage is rooted in its hardware configuration: more shading units (512 vs. 384), more TMUs (32 vs. 24), double the ROPS (16 vs. 8), and a wider memory bus (128-bit vs. 64-bit). Despite the R7 M460 having a newer architecture (GCN 3.0 vs. GCN 1.0), faster effective memory (4.5 Gbps vs. 1800 Mbps), and newer DirectX support (12_0 vs. 11_1), it cannot overcome the R7 250’s raw compute throughput in the recorded OpenCL test.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life products, the R7 250 is the pick for general compute workloads and scenarios where pixel throughput matters. The R7 M460 does offer double the memory capacity (2 GB vs. 1 GB) and higher memory bandwidth (36.00 GB/s vs. 28.80 GB/s), which could matter for certain texture-heavy or large-dataset tasks, but the compute performance gap is substantial.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct benchmark comparison between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the R7 250 posts a score of 7557, while the R7 M460 manages 6612. The delta is 14.3% in favor of the R7 250. This is a decisive single-test win, but it aligns with the hardware specifications.

Looking at the R7 250’s nearest rivals in the database provides context. It scores just 0.1% above the Intel Arc A310 (7550), 0.3% below the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580), 1.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472), and 1.5% above the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447). This places the R7 250 in a tight cluster of GPUs around the 7500 score mark.

The R7 M460’s nearest rivals tell a similar story at a lower performance tier. It scores 0.5% above the AMD Radeon HD 7730M (6581), 0.9% above the Intel UHD Graphics P750 (6554), 1.3% below the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6698), and 1.5% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6513). The R7 M460 sits in a cluster around the 6600 score mark.

The gap between these two clusters, roughly 945 points on the Geekbench OpenCL scale, is the performance difference between the two cards. The R7 250’s higher pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s vs. 8.192 GPixel/s) and texture rate (29.60 GTexel/s vs. 24.58 GTexel/s) reinforce the benchmark result. The R7 250 also delivers 947.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 786.4 GFLOPS for the R7 M460.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip, while the R7 M460 uses the Meso chip. The R7 250 comes from the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation, while the R7 M460 belongs to the Gem System (R7 M400) generation.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 M460 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 36.00 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock also differs: the R7 250 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the R7 M460 runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the R7 250. It has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R7 M460 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The resulting rates: the R7 250 achieves 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s, versus 8.192 GPixel/s and 24.58 GTexel/s for the R7 M460. FP32 output is 947.2 GFLOPS for the R7 250 and 786.4 GFLOPS for the R7 M460.

The R7 M460 has a base clock of 730 MHz and a boost clock of 1024 MHz; the R7 250 has no recorded base or boost clocks. Power and physical specifications also differ: the R7 250 has a 55 W TDP, a single-slot design, no power connectors, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and a length of 168 mm. The R7 M460 has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connectors, suggested PSU, or dimensions. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the R7 250 versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R7 M460. Display outputs are listed only for the R7 250: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural generations from AMD. The R7 250 is built on GCN 1.0, while the R7 M460 uses GCN 3.0. This is a meaningful generational gap, though the recorded data shows the older architecture delivering higher absolute performance in the OpenCL benchmark.

Both chips are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Transistor counts are nearly identical: 1,500 million for the R7 250’s Cape Verde chip and 1,550 million for the R7 M460’s Meso chip. Die sizes are also close: 123 mm² versus 125 mm². Transistor density is 12.2M per mm² for the R7 250 and 12.4M per mm² for the R7 M460. The slightly larger and denser Meso chip does not translate into higher compute performance in the recorded tests.

The R7 M460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R7 250 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 M460 also has a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio (786.4 GFLOPS for both), while the R7 250 has no recorded FP16 capability. This suggests the newer architecture brings some feature advantages, even if raw FP32 throughput is lower.

The R7 250 has no recorded base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The R7 M460 has a base clock of 730 MHz and a boost of 1024 MHz, with memory at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). The R7 M460’s higher effective memory speed compensates for its narrower 64-bit bus, resulting in 36.00 GB/s bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s for the R7 250.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 250 wins in compute-heavy workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 7557 beats the R7 M460’s 6612 by 14.3%. The R7 250 also excels in pixel throughput: 14.80 GPixel/s versus 8.192 GPixel/s, a 44.6% advantage in that metric. Its texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s outpaces the R7 M460’s 24.58 GTexel/s by 17%. FP32 compute is also higher: 947.2 GFLOPS versus 786.4 GFLOPS, a 17% lead. For any task that relies on raw shader math, rasterization, or fill-rate, the R7 250 is the stronger choice based on the recorded data.

The AMD Radeon R7 M460 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. It has 2 GB of GDDR5 versus 1 GB of DDR3, doubling the frame buffer. Its bandwidth of 36.00 GB/s exceeds the R7 250’s 28.80 GB/s by 20%. This could help in scenarios with large textures or datasets that exceed 1 GB. The R7 M460 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0), which offers more modern API capabilities than the R7 250’s DirectX 12 (11_1). It also has a boost clock of 1024 MHz, which is not present on the R7 250.

For overall compute performance, the R7 250 is the dominant part. For memory-heavy workloads or applications requiring the latest DirectX feature level, the R7 M460 has specific advantages. However, in the single benchmark test recorded in the database, the R7 250 wins outright, and its hardware specifications point to broader general-purpose superiority.