AMD Radeon R7 250 vs AMD Radeon R9 M265X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two AMD GCN 1.0 parts. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X wins the only recorded head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, by a decisive margin. Its score of 8851 versus the AMD Radeon R7 250's 7557 translates to a 17.1% advantage. That is not a marginal difference; it is a clear generational and positioning gap that shows up in raw compute workloads.

The R9 M265X's OpenCL result places it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R7 250 sits at the 41st percentile. Though both are near the middle of the field, the R9 M265X is closer to substantially faster parts. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, scores 8863, a delta of just -0.1%. That means the R9 M265X is effectively neck-and-neck with a professional workstation card in this test. The R9 M265X also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746, +1.2%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8743, +1.2%). This is a mobile-oriented chip trading blows with desktop and modern mobile parts.

The R7 250, by contrast, finds itself among a different tier. Its nearest rival is the Intel Arc A310 at 7550, a delta of only +0.1%. It trails the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 by -0.3% (7580) and beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 by 1.1% (7472) and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M by 1.5% (7447). The R7 250's position is less about outright speed and more about being a consistent mid-pack performer. It wins no recorded head-to-head test against the R9 M265X.

For use-case segmentation, the R9 M265X is the choice for compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL, such as encoding, rendering, or GPU-accelerated filters. The R7 250 is a functional entry-level part, but the data shows it cannot match the R9 M265X's throughput in the single metric measured.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same GCN 1.0 architecture, the same 28 nm TSMC process node, the same transistor count of 1,500 million, and the same die size of 123 mm². Transistor density is identical at 12.2M per mm². The silicon foundation is essentially the same, but the implementations diverge sharply.

The R9 M265X uses the Venus chip, while the R7 250 uses Cape Verde. The R9 M265X belongs to the Gem System (R9 M200) generation, released March 20, 2014. The R7 250 belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation, released October 7, 2013. That is roughly five months of separation in launch timing.

The compute configuration is where the real gap appears. The R9 M265X packs 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R9 M265X has 25% more shaders and 25% more texture units, which directly explains its higher theoretical throughput. The R9 M265X achieves 800.0 GFLOPS FP32, while the R7 250 reaches 947.2 GFLOPS. That is counterintuitive at first glance: the R7 250 has a higher FP32 figure despite fewer cores. The reason lies in clock speeds. The R9 M265X runs at a 575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost, with memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The R7 250's clocks are not listed for base or boost, but its memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The R7 250's higher pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (29.60 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s) suggest a higher core clock, which boosts its peak FP32 despite fewer execution units.

Memory is a major differentiator. The R9 M265X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 250 has only 1024 MB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, yielding just 28.80 GB/s. That is a 2.22x bandwidth advantage for the R9 M265X. For OpenCL workloads, which are often memory-bound, this difference is likely the dominant factor in the 17.1% score gap.

Power and physical specs differ too. The R7 250 is a single-slot card, 168 mm (6.6 inches) long, with a 55 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested 250 W PSU. It has display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The R9 M265X has no listed TDP, slot width, power connectors, or display outputs in the database, reflecting its mobile-oriented design. The R9 M265X uses PCIe 3.0 x16, as does the R7 250. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, consistent with their GCN 1.0 era.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for anyone comparing these two. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X outperforms the AMD Radeon R7 250 in the only measured benchmark, and it does so by a wide margin: 8851 versus 7557, a 17.1% lead. The R9 M265X also sits in a higher percentile (44th versus 41st) and is statistically tied with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, a professional part. If the workload is OpenCL compute, the R9 M265X is the stronger pick.

The R7 250 is not without merit. Its higher FP32 peak (947.2 GFLOPS) and higher pixel/texture rates suggest it may handle certain fixed-function tasks or clock-sensitive workloads better, though the recorded data does not include a test that proves this. Its 55 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it an easy drop-in for low-power systems. Its DDR3 memory, however, is a severe bottleneck: 28.80 GB/s versus the R9 M265X's 64.00 GB/s. Any workload that streams data will stall on the R7 250.

For a system builder targeting compute performance, the R9 M265X is the only rational choice from this pair. For a user needing a basic display adapter with modest acceleration and minimal power draw, the R7 250 is acceptable, but the benchmark evidence shows it is the slower GPU. The R9 M265X wins the head-to-head, and the architecture differences support that result.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8851 versus the AMD Radeon R7 250's 7557, a 17.1% advantage.

Q: Do these GPUs use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use GCN 1.0 and are built on TSMC's 28 nm process with 1,500 million transistors and a 123 mm² die.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ?

A: The R9 M265X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The R9 M265X has 640 shading units, while the R7 250 has 512, a 25% difference.

Q: Is the R7 250 more power-efficient?

A: The R7 250 has a listed 55 W TDP and no power connectors, while the R9 M265X has no TDP listed in the database, so a direct efficiency comparison is not possible from the data.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The R9 M265X is within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8863) and beats the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile by 1.2%. The R7 250 is within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580) and beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 by 1.1%.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head test is the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X scored 8851, and the AMD Radeon R7 250 scored 7557. The delta is 17.1% in favor of the R9 M265X. This is the largest and only confirmed performance gap between the two.

To contextualize that 17.1% gap, consider the R9 M265X's nearest rivals. It trails the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 by just 0.1% (8863) and leads the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile by 1.2% (8746) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 by 1.2% (8743). The R9 M265X is not merely faster than the R7 250; it is performing at a tier that includes modern and professional GPUs.

The R7 250, meanwhile, is grouped with the Intel Arc A310 (7550, +0.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580, -0.3%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, +1.1%), and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, +1.5%). Its position is mid-pack, and its 41st percentile reflects that.

Why does the R9 M265X win so decisively? The memory subsystem is the clearest culprit. The R9 M265X's GDDR5 delivers 64.00 GB/s, more than double the R7 250's 28.80 GB/s from DDR3. OpenCL workloads frequently saturate memory bandwidth, and the R9 M265X has a massive edge there. The R9 M265X also has more compute units (640 shaders versus 512), though the R7 250's higher clocks give it a higher FP32 peak. That the R9 M265X still wins by 17.1% suggests that raw FP32 is not the limiting factor; memory bandwidth and effective shader utilization are.

The pixel rate and texture rate numbers favor the R7 250 (14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s and 25.00 GTexel/s), which indicates the R7 250's clock speed is higher. Yet those advantages do not translate into a benchmark win. The recorded data shows the R9 M265X is the superior part for OpenCL, and the architecture analysis supports that conclusion. The R7 250's higher theoretical FP32 is an anomaly explained by clock speed, not a real-world advantage in the measured test.