AMD Radeon R7 250 vs AMD Radeon R9 M375X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available head-to-head benchmark decisively favors the AMD Radeon R9 M375X. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R9 M375X scores 8,273 points against 7,557 for the AMD Radeon R7 250, a 9.5% advantage. This is not a marginal win; it places the two cards in different performance tiers. The R9 M375X sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs, while the R7 250 sits at the 41st percentile. That two-percentile gap translates into a measurable performance separation in compute workloads.

Looking at the nearest rival data confirms the R9 M375X's position. Its average benchmark score of 8,325 sits within 1.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458) and just 1.3% behind the AMD Radeon 880M (8,436). It even edges out the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 (8,265) by 0.7%. The R7 250, by contrast, trades blows with a different class of hardware. Its 7,557 average score is nearly identical to the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, a 0.1% gap) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580, a -0.3% gap). The R7 250 does outperform the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 by 1.1%, but that rival's low 7,472 score suggests it is an outlier in its own lineup.

The 9.5% delta between the two AMD cards is larger than any gap between either card and its closest rivals. In practical terms, the R9 M375X delivers roughly one additional frame in every ten compared to the R7 250 in OpenCL compute tasks. That is the difference between a card that can handle light compute acceleration and one that feels noticeably quicker in the same role. The R7 250 does not win a single benchmark in this comparison; the data is one-sided.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental design DNA. Each uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both chips measure exactly 123 mm² in die size and pack 1,500 million transistors, yielding an identical transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The R9 M375X uses the Tropo chip, while the R7 250 uses Cape Verde. Despite the different chip names, the underlying silicon appears cut from the same cloth.

The generational positioning differs. The R9 M375X belongs to the "Gem System (R9 M300)" generation and lists its predecessor as "Solar System" and successor as "Polaris Mobile." The R7 250 belongs to "Volcanic Islands (R7 200)" with predecessor "Sea Islands" and successor "Pirate Islands." This means the R9 M375X is a later mobile-oriented part, while the R7 250 is an earlier desktop-focused release.

Clock behavior separates the two significantly. The R9 M375X runs a base clock of 925 MHz with a boost up to 1,015 MHz. The R7 250 has no base or boost clock listed in the data. For memory, the R9 M375X uses 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the R7 250 runs at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective). That clock difference compounds with a memory type difference: the R9 M375X uses GDDR5, the R7 250 uses DDR3. Both have a 128-bit bus, but the resulting bandwidth tells the story — 72.00 GB/s for the R9 M375X versus 28.80 GB/s for the R7 250. The R9 M375X has 2.5 times the memory bandwidth, a massive architectural advantage.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The R9 M375X packs 640 shading units and 40 texture mapping units, while the R7 250 has 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. Both have 16 ROPs. The R9 M375X also carries 2 GB of GDDR5 memory versus 1 GB of DDR3 on the R7 250. Pixel rate favors the R9 M375X at 16.24 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, and texture rate jumps to 40.60 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput reaches 1,299.2 GFLOPS on the R9 M375X versus 947.2 GFLOPS on the R7 250.

API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170 on both. Bus interface is the same PCIe 3.0 x16. The R7 250 has a listed TDP of 55 W, while the R9 M375X has no TDP figure in the data. The R7 250 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, a suggested 250 W PSU, and a 168 mm (6.6 inches) length. It has display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The R9 M375X's physical specifications are largely absent from the data.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375X wins the only head-to-head benchmark, scoring 8,273 to the R7 250's 7,557, a 9.5% advantage.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Why is the R9 M375X's memory bandwidth so much higher?

A: The R9 M375X uses GDDR5 memory at 4.5 Gbps effective with a 128-bit bus, yielding 72.00 GB/s. The R7 250 uses DDR3 at 1,800 Mbps effective on the same bus width, yielding 28.80 GB/s.

Q: Are these cards based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use GCN 1.0 on a 28 nm TSMC process, with the same 1,500 million transistors and 123 mm² die size.

Q: What is the R7 250's power requirement?

A: The R7 250 has a 55 W TDP, is single-slot, has no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The R9 M375X has 640 shading units, compared to 512 on the R7 250, a 25% increase.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the AMD Radeon R9 M375X is the stronger GPU. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark by 9.5%, has 25% more shading units, 25% more texture units, double the memory capacity, and 2.5 times the memory bandwidth. Its FP32 throughput is 37% higher. The R7 250's only advantages are a lower TDP (55 W versus no listed figure) and documented physical dimensions and display outputs.

The R9 M375X's nearest rival comparisons reinforce its position. It sits within 1.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and beats the NVIDIA Quadro K1200. The R7 250, meanwhile, matches the Intel Arc A310 within 0.1% and only beats the GeForce GTX 1650 by 1.1%. These are different performance classes. The percentile ranking (43rd versus 41st) confirms the R9 M375X sits higher in the global GPU distribution.

For anyone choosing between these two, the R9 M375X is the clear pick for compute performance. The R7 250 is not without merit — its 55 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it a simple drop-in for low-power systems — but the benchmark data shows a consistent and significant performance gap. The R7 250's 947.2 GFLOPS FP32 is respectable for its class, but it cannot match the R9 M375X's 1,299.2 GFLOPS.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M375X | AMD Radeon R7 250 |

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

| Chip | Tropo | Cape Verde |

| Generation | Gem System (R9 M300) | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Sea Islands |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Pirate Islands |

| Base Clock | 925 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1015 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 72.00 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 512 |

| TMUs | 40 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.24 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 40.60 GTexel/s | 29.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,299.2 GFLOPS | 947.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 55 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

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

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

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M375X wins in every benchmark category where data exists. It dominates OpenCL compute, taking the head-to-head by 9.5%. Its higher clock speeds, more shading units, and vastly superior memory subsystem make it the choice for any workload that stresses parallel compute, texture throughput, or memory bandwidth. The 72.00 GB/s bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s is the single largest differentiator; memory-bound workloads will see the most dramatic gap. Its 2 GB frame buffer also allows it to handle larger textures and datasets than the R7 250's 1 GB.

The AMD Radeon R7 250 wins in power efficiency and physical integration. Its 55 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors mean it can slot into systems with minimal power delivery requirements — the 250 W suggested PSU is modest. Its 168 mm length and documented display outputs (DVI, HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort 1.2) make it a predictable, easy-to-integrate card for basic display output and light acceleration. The R9 M375X has no such physical specifications listed, so its power draw, slot width, and connector requirements are unknown.

For pure performance, the R9 M375X is the only rational choice. For a low-power, low-profile desktop card where compute is secondary, the R7 250 offers documented simplicity. The data does not support any other conclusion.