AMD Radeon R7 250 vs Intel Arc A380 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single directly comparable benchmark between these two cards, and the result is emphatic. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Arc A380 scores 38,224 points against the AMD Radeon R7 250's 7,557 points. That is a delta of 405.8%, meaning the Arc A380 outperforms the R7 250 by a factor of roughly five in this compute-oriented workload. This is not a marginal generational step; it is a chasm that reflects the fundamental technological gap between the two products.

The Arc A380's score of 38,224 places it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R7 250's 7,557 score sits in the 41st percentile. Interestingly, despite the massive raw score difference, both cards occupy surprisingly close percentile positions. This suggests that the database's GPU population is heavily weighted toward modern, high-performance parts, where even a strong entry-level card like the Arc A380 does not climb far above the median. The R7 250, however, is not far behind in percentile terms, which indicates that many older or similarly dated GPUs still populate the lower tiers of the database.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The Arc A380's closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W5170M with an average score of 8,595, a delta of -0.4%, meaning the FirePro is essentially tied with the Arc A380 in average benchmark performance. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 trails by 1.2%, and the AMD Radeon 880M trails by 1.4%. For the R7 250, the nearest rival is the Intel Arc A310 at 7,550, a 0.1% delta, followed by the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 at 7,580 (-0.3%). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 leads the R7 250 by 1.1%, and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M trails by 1.5%. These rival clusters reveal that the Arc A380 competes in a performance tier roughly 13% above the R7 250's tier, based on average scores of 8,558 versus 7,557.

However, the single head-to-head OpenCL result tells a far more dramatic story than the average benchmark scores suggest. The Arc A380's OpenCL score is more than five times higher than the R7 250's, yet its average benchmark score across all tests is only about 13% higher. This discrepancy implies that the Arc A380's advantage is highly workload-dependent: it excels dramatically in OpenCL compute tasks, while its overall average is pulled down by other tests where the gap narrows considerably. The R7 250, by contrast, has only one recorded benchmark, so its average is simply that single OpenCL score.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different architectural eras. The Intel Arc A380 uses the DG2-128 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist generation (Arc 3). It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, containing 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Volcanic Islands generation (R7 200). It is built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The density difference is nearly fourfold, reflecting the process node advantage.

Memory configurations are radically different. The Arc A380 carries 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 250 has just 1 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, with only 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A380's memory bandwidth is roughly 6.5 times higher, a critical factor for modern games and compute workloads. The R7 250's memory clock runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the Arc A380's memory runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective).

Compute resources differ substantially. The Arc A380 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. It also includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the R7 250. The R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate for the Arc A380 is 65.60 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s for the R7 250. Texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 4.198 TFLOPS for the Arc A380 versus 947.2 GFLOPS for the R7 250. The Arc A380 also supports FP16 at 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the R7 250 has no recorded FP16 capability.

API support shows the architectural gap. The Arc A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX feature level difference (12_2 versus 11_1) is significant: the Arc A380 can use mesh shaders, variable rate shading, and other modern features, while the R7 250 is limited to older rendering paths.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A380 in the recorded head-to-head benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Arc A380 scores 38,224 points versus the R7 250's 7,557 points, a delta of 405.8% in favor of the Arc A380.

Q: Which card has more memory, and what is the bandwidth difference?

A: The Arc A380 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 250 has 1 GB of DDR3 memory with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc A380's bandwidth is approximately 6.5 times higher.

Q: Does the R7 250 support ray tracing?

A: No. The R7 250 has no ray tracing cores. The Arc A380 includes 8 ray tracing cores as part of its Xe-HPG architecture.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two cards?

A: The Arc A380 is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the R7 250 uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. Transistor density is 45.9 million per mm² for the Arc A380 versus 12.2 million per mm² for the R7 250.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Arc A380 has an average benchmark score of 8,558, while the R7 250 has an average of 7,557. The Arc A380's percentile rank is 44 versus 41 for the R7 250.

Q: What DirectX versions do the two cards support?

A: The Arc A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The Arc A380 also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.2.170 for the R7 250.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A380 | AMD Radeon R7 250 |

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

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 96 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 186.0 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 512 |

| TMUs | 64 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 8 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 65.60 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 131.2 GTexel/s | 29.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.198 TFLOPS | 947.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| TDP | 75 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 222 mm (8.7 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Release Date | 2022-06-13 | 2013-10-07 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | Sea Islands |

| Successor | Battlemage | Pirate Islands |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380 wins decisively in the only directly comparable benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 405.8% advantage. This indicates that for any OpenCL compute workload, whether it involves image processing, physics simulation, or general-purpose GPU computing, the Arc A380 is the clear choice. Its 8 ray tracing cores also make it viable for hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a capability the R7 250 simply does not possess. The Arc A380's 6 GB GDDR6 memory with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth gives it a massive advantage in texture-heavy games and applications that require large frame buffers. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate support means it can run modern games with advanced features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading.

The AMD Radeon R7 250 has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. However, its specification profile suggests certain niches where it might be less disadvantageous. Its single-slot design and lack of power connectors mean it can fit into compact systems without additional power cabling, whereas the Arc A380 requires a dual-slot footprint and a single 8-pin connector. The R7 250's 55 W TDP is lower than the Arc A380's 75 W, which could matter in thermally constrained environments. Its 128-bit memory bus is wider than the Arc A380's 96-bit bus, though the vastly lower memory clock and DDR3 type negate this advantage. The R7 250 also supports PCIe 3.0 x16, which is more broadly compatible with older motherboards than the Arc A380's PCIe 4.0 x8 interface.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Arc A380 is the superior product by nearly every measurable specification and benchmark metric. The 405.8% OpenCL performance advantage is overwhelming, and the architectural differences (6 nm versus 28 nm, GDDR6 versus DDR3, ray tracing versus none) leave little room for debate. The Arc A380's average benchmark score of 8,558 versus 7,557 for the R7 250, along with its higher 44th percentile ranking, confirms that it is the stronger card overall.

The R7 250, released in 2013, belongs to an era when 1 GB of DDR3 memory and 512 shading units were acceptable for entry-level gaming. The Arc A380, released in 2022, is a modern architecture with 6 GB of GDDR6 memory, 1,024 shading units, and hardware ray tracing. The R7 250's only advantages are its lower TDP (55 W versus 75 W), single-slot form factor, and lack of external power connector, which might suit very specific legacy system builds. But for any user choosing between these two, the recorded data strongly favors the Arc A380 for OpenCL compute tasks and modern gaming workloads. The R7 250 is best considered only for ultra-compact or low-power systems where the Arc A380's physical requirements cannot be met.