GPU Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 250 and Intel Arc A310 occupy nearly the same position in the overall performance hierarchy, yet they are separated by nearly a decade of GPU architecture evolution. The data shows the Arc A310 delivers a 305% higher raw compute score in the sole shared benchmark, but the R7 250 still holds its ground as the more efficient option in certain legacy scenarios. Their average benchmark scores are virtually identical, 7557 for the R7 250 versus 7550 for the Arc A310, placing both in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, but that statistical tie masks a fundamental divergence in design philosophy and feature support.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark available, crushing the R7 250 in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 30607 versus 7557, a delta of -75.3% in favor of Intel. This massive margin reflects the Arc A310’s modern compute architecture, which excels at parallel workloads that scale with shading units and memory bandwidth. The R7 250, by contrast, offers no competitive advantage in any measured benchmark against the Arc A310; its sole win category is its legacy API compatibility profile, where it supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, which may be sufficient for older software titles that do not require the Arc A310’s DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set.

However, the R7 250’s real strength lies in its efficiency at lower resolutions and its compatibility with older PCIe 3.0 motherboards, making it a drop-in upgrade for systems that lack PCIe 4.0 support. The Arc A310, with its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, is better suited for modern titles that demand higher texture budgets and bandwidth. In terms of raw rasterization, the Arc A310’s pixel rate of 28.00 GPixel/s is nearly double the R7 250’s 14.80 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 56.00 GTexel/s similarly doubles the R7 250’s 29.60 GTexel/s. For users prioritizing modern game compatibility and compute workloads, the Arc A310 is the clear winner; for those needing a simple, low-power card for older systems, the R7 250 remains relevant.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The R7 250 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The Arc A310 employs Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC node, packing 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 45.9M per mm² versus the R7 250’s 12.2M per mm². This density advantage allows the Arc A310 to offer 768 shading units compared to the R7 250’s 512, while both cards feature 32 texture mapping units and 16 raster output units.

The Arc A310 also introduces dedicated hardware that the R7 250 completely lacks: 6 ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing in supported titles. The R7 250 has no such capability, and its FP32 throughput of 947.2 GFLOPS is dwarfed by the Arc A310’s 2.688 TFLOPS. The Arc A310 further supports FP16 compute at 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the R7 250 has no listed FP16 performance. Memory architecture diverges sharply as well: the R7 250 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Arc A310 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 124.0 GB/s, over four times the bandwidth despite a narrower bus.

Process node and foundry differences also impact power characteristics. The R7 250’s TDP is 55 W, while the Arc A310 draws only 30 W, a remarkable efficiency gain given the Arc’s far higher performance. The R7 250 requires a suggested 250 W power supply, while the Arc A310 suggests only 200 W. Both cards are single-slot with no power connectors, but the Arc A310’s lower power draw makes it the more attractive option for small form factor builds.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Intel Arc A310 scores 30607 against the AMD Radeon R7 250’s 7557. This represents a 75.3% advantage for Intel, meaning the Arc A310 delivers roughly four times the compute performance in this workload. The margin is so large that it overshadows the near-identical average benchmark scores reported by the database, which list the R7 250 at 7557 and the Arc A310 at 7550, a difference of just 0.1% in favor of AMD.

That discrepancy arises because the R7 250 has only a single benchmark entry (Geekbench OpenCL), while the Arc A310 includes multiple Passmark tests that drag its average down. The Arc A310’s Passmark scores are notably weak: DirectX 10 at 31, DirectX 11 at 33, DirectX 12 at 29, DirectX 9 at 69, G2D at 625, G3D at 5433, and GPU compute at 2157. These low DirectX scores suggest the Arc A310’s driver stack may not be optimized for legacy APIs, while the R7 250’s older architecture handles them natively without such penalties.

In the OpenCL test specifically, the Arc A310’s 30607 score places it well ahead of its nearest rivals in the database, including the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472). The R7 250’s 7557 score sits just 0.1% above the Arc A310’s average but 1.1% above the GTX 1650 and 1.5% above the AMD Radeon HD 8850M. This indicates that while the R7 250 is competitive with entry-level cards from its era, the Arc A310’s compute advantage is overwhelming in modern workloads.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification that matters. The R7 250 uses a 28 nm process with 1,500 million transistors; the Arc A310 uses a 6 nm process with 7,200 million transistors. Memory size jumps from 1024 MB DDR3 to 4 GB GDDR6, with bandwidth increasing from 28.80 GB/s to 124.0 GB/s. The R7 250’s memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the Arc A310 runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The R7 250 has a 128-bit memory bus; the Arc A310 narrows to 64-bit but compensates with faster memory.

Shading units increase from 512 to 768, while TMUs and ROPs remain identical at 32 and 16 respectively. The R7 250’s FP32 performance is 947.2 GFLOPS; the Arc A310 delivers 2.688 TFLOPS, a 2.8x improvement. Pixel rate rises from 14.80 GPixel/s to 28.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 29.60 GTexel/s to 56.00 GTexel/s. The Arc A310 adds 6 ray tracing cores, whereas the R7 250 has none. TDP drops from 55 W to 30 W, and the suggested PSU requirement falls from 250 W to 200 W.

Bus interface changes from PCIe 3.0 x16 to PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs differ: the R7 250 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Arc A310 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0. API support diverges significantly: the R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Arc A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 250 is 168 mm long (6.6 inches), while the Arc A310 has no listed dimensions. Release dates are 2013-10-07 for AMD and 2022-10-11 for Intel, with the R7 250 succeeding Sea Islands and preceding Pirate Islands, while the Arc A310 succeeds Xe Graphics and precedes Battlemage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc A310 delivers 2.688 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 250’s 947.2 GFLOPS. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Arc A310 scores 30607 versus 7557, a 75.3% advantage.

Q: Do both cards support hardware ray tracing?

A: No. The Intel Arc A310 includes 6 ray tracing cores, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 has no ray tracing hardware at all.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and what type?

A: The R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A310 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has a TDP of 30 W and suggests a 200 W power supply. The AMD Radeon R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W and suggests a 250 W power supply.

Q: Are these GPUs considered end-of-life?

A: Yes, both cards have a production status of "End-of-life." The R7 250 was released on 2013-10-07, and the Arc A310 was released on 2022-10-11.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The R7 250 has an average benchmark score of 7557, while the Arc A310 averages 7550. The Arc A310 is listed as a nearest rival to the R7 250 with a delta of 0.1%, and the R7 250 is a nearest rival to the Arc A310 with a delta of -0.1%.