AMD Radeon R7 250 vs AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 250 and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile represent two distinct approaches to graphics processing, separated by over five years of architectural evolution. The R7 250 is a discrete, end-of-life desktop card from the Volcanic Islands generation, built on a 28 nm process, while the Vega 8 Mobile is an integrated GPU (IGP) from the Raven Ridge-M generation, fabricated on a 14 nm node. Benchmark data shows a close contest, with the R7 250 holding a narrow lead in the sole shared test, but the underlying specifications reveal significant differences in design philosophy, memory architecture, and feature support. This analysis examines the head-to-head results, architectural divergence, and practical implications for each product.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557 points against 7435 points for the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile. This yields a deltaPct of 1.6%, meaning the R7 250 is just 1.6% faster in this compute-oriented workload. While the R7 250 wins the head-to-head contest, the margin is remarkably slim, suggesting that the integrated Vega 8 Mobile is highly competitive despite its power constraints and shared-memory architecture. The difference of 122 points falls well within the range of run-to-run variance typical of OpenCL benchmarks, so the practical performance gap is negligible for most applications.

Looking at broader context, the R7 250’s 7557 score places it at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega 8 Mobile’s 7435 score sits at the 39th percentile. This 2-percentile gap reflects the near-identical raw scores. The R7 250’s nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A310 (7550, +0.1%), AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580, -0.3%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, +1.1%). Meanwhile, the Vega 8 Mobile is bracketed by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7222, -0.3%), GeForce GTX 560 SE (7171, +0.4%), and Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7170, +0.5%). Notably, the Vega 8 Mobile’s average benchmark score across all tests is 7203, which is lower than its OpenCL score because it also includes a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6970. The R7 250 has no Vulkan score listed, only the single OpenCL result.

The data shows that the R7 250 edges out the Vega 8 Mobile in raw compute, but the Vega 8 Mobile counters with a higher FP32 throughput (1,127.4 GFLOPS vs 947.2 GFLOPS) and a higher texture rate (35.23 GTexel/s vs 29.60 GTexel/s). This apparent contradiction—higher theoretical throughput yet lower benchmark score—can be attributed to memory bandwidth limitations. The R7 250 has dedicated 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s, while the Vega 8 Mobile relies on system shared memory, making its bandwidth "System Dependent." The R7 250’s fixed 28.80 GB/s is a known quantity, whereas the Vega 8 Mobile’s performance hinges on the host system’s memory configuration.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 250 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, but its advantages extend beyond that single score. With a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s versus 8.808 GPixel/s for the Vega 8 Mobile, the R7 250 is substantially faster at fill-rate-limited tasks such as traditional rasterization at high resolutions. The R7 250 also has double the ROPs (16 vs 8), which directly impacts pixel throughput and anti-aliasing performance. For older DirectX 11_1 workloads, the R7 250’s dedicated memory and higher pixel rate make it the better choice, particularly in games that are not compute-bound.

The Vega 8 Mobile, despite losing the OpenCL test, wins in several categories that matter for modern workloads. Its FP32 output of 1,127.4 GFLOPS is 19% higher than the R7 250’s 947.2 GFLOPS, indicating superior compute potential for tasks like physics simulation or GPGPU processing. The Vega 8 Mobile also supports FP16 with a rate of 2.255 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature entirely absent from the R7 250’s specification list. This makes the Vega 8 Mobile more suitable for machine learning inference or media processing that leverages half-precision arithmetic. Additionally, the Vega 8 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the R7 250 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. For modern games that require DX12_1 features or newer Vulkan extensions, the Vega 8 Mobile has a clear compatibility edge.

The texture rate also favors the Vega 8 Mobile (35.23 GTexel/s vs 29.60 GTexel/s), which benefits texture-heavy scenes despite the lower pixel rate. In practice, the Vega 8 Mobile’s higher boost clock of 1101 MHz (versus no boost clock listed for the R7 250) and system-shared memory allow it to scale with faster system RAM, whereas the R7 250 is capped by its fixed 28.80 GB/s DDR3 bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, spanning two generations of GCN. The R7 250 uses GCN 1.0, an early iteration of AMD’s Graphics Core Next design, while the Vega 8 Mobile employs GCN 5.0, the final and most refined version of the architecture. This generational leap is reflected in the process node: the R7 250 is built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, whereas the Vega 8 Mobile uses GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm node. The smaller node enables the Vega 8 Mobile to pack 4,940 million transistors into a 210 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². In contrast, the R7 250 has just 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2M per mm².

Both GPUs share the same core count of 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), but they diverge on ROPs: the R7 250 has 16 ROPs, while the Vega 8 Mobile has only 8. This halving of ROPs explains the significant pixel rate difference (14.80 GPixel/s vs 8.808 GPixel/s). The Vega 8 Mobile compensates with a higher clock speed—its boost clock of 1101 MHz exceeds the R7 250’s unspecified base/boost clocks, though the R7 250’s memory clock is listed at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Vega 8 Mobile’s memory is "System Shared" with system-dependent bandwidth, while the R7 250 has a fixed 128-bit DDR3 interface.

The power envelope tells a clear story: the R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W, while the Vega 8 Mobile draws just 25 W. This 30 W difference is critical for mobile applications, as the Vega 8 Mobile is designed as an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and no dedicated display outputs (portable device dependent). The R7 250, by contrast, is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm (6.6 inches) with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, requiring a 250 W suggested PSU. The Vega 8 Mobile’s API support is also more modern: DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 versus the R7 250’s DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, with both supporting OpenGL 4.6.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The R7 250 has an average benchmark score of 7557, while the Vega 8 Mobile’s average is 7203, reflecting its additional Vulkan score of 6970 alongside the OpenCL score of 7435.

Q: How do the pixel rates compare?

A: The R7 250 has a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s, which is 68% higher than the Vega 8 Mobile’s 8.808 GPixel/s, due to the R7 250’s 16 ROPs versus 8 ROPs.

Q: Does the Vega 8 Mobile support half-precision floating point?

A: Yes, the Vega 8 Mobile supports FP16 at 2.255 TFLOPS (2:1), while the R7 250 has no FP16 capability listed in its specifications.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W, while the Vega 8 Mobile has a TDP of 25 W, making the IGP significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which GPU has better API support for modern games?

A: The Vega 8 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, giving the Vega 8 Mobile a compatibility edge.

Q: How does memory bandwidth differ between the two?

A: The R7 250 has fixed 28.80 GB/s bandwidth from 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, while the Vega 8 Mobile uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent."

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon R7 250 and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile:

• Chip: Cape Verde vs Raven-M
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs GCN 5.0
• Generation: Volcanic Islands (R7 200) vs Vega IGP (Raven Ridge-M)
• Process Node: 28 nm (TSMC) vs 14 nm (GlobalFoundries)
• Transistors: 1,500 million vs 4,940 million
• Die Size: 123 mm² vs 210 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.2M / mm² vs 23.5M / mm²
• Boost Clock: Not listed vs 1101 MHz
• Memory: 1024 MB DDR3 vs System Shared
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs System Shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s vs System Dependent
• ROPs: 16 vs 8
• Pixel Rate: 14.80 GPixel/s vs 8.808 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 29.60 GTexel/s vs 35.23 GTexel/s
• FP32: 947.2 GFLOPS vs 1,127.4 GFLOPS
• FP16: Not listed vs 2.255 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 55 W vs 25 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs IGP
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs Not listed
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs IGP
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 vs Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX: 12 (11_1) vs 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 vs 1.3
• Dimensions: 168 mm (6.6 inches) length vs Not listed
• Release Date: 2013-10-07 vs 2019-01-07
• Predecessor: Sea Islands vs GCN 3.0 IGP
• Successor: Pirate Islands vs Navi II IGP

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear but nuanced picture. The R7 250 wins the head-to-head OpenCL test with a 1.6% margin, and its higher pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s vs 8.808 GPixel/s) makes it the superior choice for traditional rasterization workloads where fill rate dominates. Its dedicated 1024 MB of DDR3 memory with fixed 28.80 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable performance, and its 16 ROPs ensure efficient pixel processing. For users running legacy DirectX 11_1 games or applications that rely on fixed-function pixel throughput, the R7 250 is the data-backed pick. Its 55 W TDP and single-slot form factor also make it a straightforward drop-in card for desktop systems with a 250 W PSU.

Conversely, the Vega 8 Mobile is the better choice for modern, compute-oriented workloads. Its FP32 output of 1,127.4 GFLOPS exceeds the R7 250’s 947.2 GFLOPS, and its FP16 support at 2.255 TFLOPS opens doors to half-precision applications unavailable on the R7 250. The higher texture rate (35.23 GTexel/s) benefits texture-heavy scenes, and the DirectX 12 (12_1) plus Vulkan 1.3 support ensures compatibility with contemporary titles. The 25 W TDP makes it ideal for portable devices, where its system-shared memory can scale with faster system RAM, potentially closing the bandwidth gap with the R7 250. The data shows that while the R7 250 retains a slight edge in raw compute benchmarks, the Vega 8 Mobile offers a more future-proof feature set and significantly better power efficiency. Users prioritizing peak pixel performance should choose the R7 250; those valuing modern API support, FP16 compute, and low power consumption should opt for the Vega 8 Mobile.