AMD Radeon R7 250 vs Intel UHD Graphics 750 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 250 and Intel UHD Graphics 750 are both end-of-life products, but they represent fundamentally different approaches to graphics. The R7 250 is a dedicated discrete GPU from 2013, while the UHD 750 is an integrated processor graphics unit from 2021. In the single available head-to-head benchmark, the AMD Radeon R7 250 emerges as the clear winner, but the Intel part counters with a modern API feature set and a higher peak score in a different test. The data reveals a closer contest than the generational gap suggests, with the R7 250 holding a 12.1% lead in OpenCL compute while the UHD 750 demonstrates superior Vulkan performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557 against the Intel UHD Graphics 750’s 6743. This represents a decisive 12.1% victory for the AMD part, a significant margin that places it comfortably ahead in raw compute throughput. This lead is consistent with the R7 250’s dedicated memory interface and higher transistor count, which allow it to sustain higher fill rates and texturing performance. The R7 250’s pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s dwarf the UHD 750’s 10.40 GPixel/s and 20.80 GTexel/s, respectively, explaining its advantage in this workload.

However, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is not without its own benchmark claim. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Intel part scores 8138, a figure that exceeds its own OpenCL result by over 20%. While the AMD R7 250 has no Vulkan score listed, the UHD 750’s 8138 Vulkan result is higher than the R7 250’s OpenCL score of 7557, suggesting that in graphics API-centric workloads, the Intel part can outperform the AMD card’s best available number. This is a crucial distinction: the R7 250 wins the only direct head-to-head, but the UHD 750 demonstrates a higher peak capability in a different API test.

When looking at the broader context, both GPUs sit at nearly the same percentile ranking. The R7 250 holds a 41st percentile vs all GPUs, while the UHD 750 sits at the 40th. Their average benchmark scores are also remarkably close: 7557 for the R7 250 and 7441 for the UHD 750, a difference of only 1.6%. This near-parity is reflected in their nearest rivals, as both are clustered around the same performance tier. The R7 250’s nearest rival, the Intel Arc A310, scores 7550 with a deltaPct of 0.1%, while the UHD 750’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, scores 7447 with a deltaPct of -0.1%. This data indicates that neither GPU holds a significant overall performance advantage, despite the R7 250’s specific OpenCL win.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast, starting with their fundamental designs. The AMD Radeon R7 250 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture using a 28 nm process from TSMC, packing 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die. In contrast, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 uses the Generation 12.1 architecture on Intel’s 14 nm+++ process node. The R7 250 is a discrete card with its own 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The UHD 750, being an integrated processor, relies on System Shared memory with a System Dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance is heavily influenced by the system’s RAM configuration.

Core counts further differentiate the two. The R7 250 features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operations pipelines. The UHD 750 is cut down to 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs — exactly half of the AMD part’s core configuration. This directly explains the R7 250’s higher pixel and texture rates. The compute throughput also tells the story: the R7 250 delivers 947.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the UHD 750 manages only 665.6 GFLOPS. However, the Intel part supports FP16 at 1,331.2 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the R7 250 lacks entirely.

The API support reveals a clear generational advantage for Intel. The UHD 750 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 250 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The power characteristics are also starkly different: the R7 250 has a 55 W TDP, requires a 250 W suggested PSU, and is a single-slot card with no power connectors. The UHD 750 is an IGP with a mere 15 W TDP, drawing power through the Ring Bus interface and requiring no separate power delivery. The R7 250’s dimensions are 168 mm in length, while the UHD 750 has no physical dimensions as it is embedded in the processor.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 250 wins in scenarios that demand raw compute and memory bandwidth. Its dedicated 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth and 512 shading units give it a clear edge in OpenCL compute workloads, as shown by its 12.1% lead over the UHD 750. The R7 250’s higher pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s makes it better suited for traditional rasterization at lower resolutions, where its dedicated memory can be fully utilized. It also offers a fixed set of display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), making it a predictable choice for a dedicated graphics card in an older system.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 wins in modern API compatibility and efficiency. Its Vulkan 1.4 support and DirectX 12 (12_1) are superior to the R7 250’s older DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, meaning it can run newer games and applications that require these updated APIs. The UHD 750’s Vulkan score of 8138 is its strongest benchmark, indicating that it excels in modern graphics APIs where its architecture is better optimized. The 15 W TDP is a massive advantage for low-power systems, allowing for fanless or passively cooled designs. The Intel part also supports FP16 compute at 1,331.2 GFLOPS, which can accelerate certain machine learning and media workloads that the R7 250 cannot handle.

The R7 250 also wins on physical expandability, being a PCIe 3.0 x16 card that can be installed in any compatible slot, whereas the UHD 750 is motherboard-dependent for both display outputs and memory performance. For users with an existing discrete GPU slot, the R7 250 offers a plug-and-play solution with guaranteed memory bandwidth, while the UHD 750’s performance is variable based on system RAM.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 has an average benchmark score of 7557, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 has an average score of 7441, making the R7 250 1.6% faster on average.

Q: What is the difference in shading units between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 has 512 shading units, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 has 256 shading units, exactly half the count.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 750 support newer APIs than the AMD R7 250?

A: Yes, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the AMD R7 250 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 has a 55 W TDP, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 has a 15 W TDP, making the Intel part significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 has a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s, compared to the Intel UHD Graphics 750’s 10.40 GPixel/s.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The AMD R7 250 has 1024 MB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel UHD 750 uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The AMD Radeon R7 250 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 uses a 14 nm+++ process from Intel. The R7 250 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the UHD 750 has no listed transistor count or die size. The R7 250 has a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the UHD 750 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz.

The R7 250 features 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, versus the UHD 750’s 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The R7 250’s pixel rate is 14.80 GPixel/s and texture rate is 29.60 GTexel/s, compared to the UHD 750’s 10.40 GPixel/s and 20.80 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 947.2 GFLOPS for the R7 250 and 665.6 GFLOPS for the UHD 750, but the UHD 750 adds 1,331.2 GFLOPS of FP16 performance, which the R7 250 lacks.

The R7 250 has a 55 W TDP, is single-slot, has no power connectors, and requires a 250 W suggested PSU. The UHD 750 has a 15 W TDP, is an IGP, and has no power connector or PSU requirement. The R7 250 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The UHD 750 uses a Ring Bus interface and has motherboard-dependent display outputs. The R7 250 is 168 mm long, while the UHD 750 has no physical dimensions. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170; the UHD 750 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon R7 250 for users who prioritize raw compute performance and dedicated memory. Its 12.1% lead in OpenCL, coupled with a 41st percentile ranking versus the UHD 750’s 40th, makes it the stronger choice for compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL acceleration. The R7 250’s higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput are all objectively superior to the Intel part’s. If a system has a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot and can accommodate a 55 W card, the R7 250 offers a predictable, dedicated graphics solution with guaranteed 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

However, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 should be the pick for modern system builders who need integrated graphics with the latest API support. Its Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1) support make it more future-proof for newer software titles, and its 8138 Vulkan score demonstrates a capability that the R7 250 cannot match in any listed benchmark. The 15 W TDP is a massive win for low-power and small-form-factor builds, where the R7 250’s 55 W TDP and physical card dimensions would be impractical. The UHD 750’s FP16 support also gives it a niche advantage in workloads that leverage half-precision math.

In summary, the AMD Radeon R7 250 wins the only head-to-head benchmark and offers superior raw specs, but the Intel UHD Graphics 750 counters with a modern feature set, higher Vulkan performance, and drastically lower power consumption. For legacy systems needing discrete GPU performance, the R7 250 is the data-backed choice. For new builds requiring an efficient IGP with current API support, the UHD 750 is the logical selection despite its lower compute scores. The near-identical average scores of 7557 and 7441 mean that neither GPU will disappoint in general use, but their respective strengths dictate the ideal use case.