AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce 945M Comparison

The GeForce 945M and Radeon R7 250 are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but the data shows a clear, if modest, performance hierarchy: NVIDIA’s mobile part leads by a margin that is consistent and decisive in the single benchmark available. The 945M wins the head-to-head with a 7.2% higher OpenCL score, a gap that separates it from its rival’s performance class while still leaving both cards in the lower half of the overall GPU distribution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it favors the NVIDIA GeForce 945M without ambiguity. The 945M scores 8099 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557 points, yielding a delta of 7.2% in NVIDIA’s favor. This is not a marginal victory; it is a meaningful performance tier separation in compute workloads, suggesting that the 945M can handle OpenCL tasks with noticeably more headroom.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this lead. The 945M’s average score sits within a tight cluster: it is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GRID K2 (8080), 0.4% ahead of the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (8067), and only 0.4% behind the GeForce GTX 950M (8135). The R7 250, by contrast, is positioned just below another group: it trails the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 by 0.3% (7580) and leads the Intel Arc A310 by a mere 0.1% (7550). This places the R7 250 in a lower performance band, where its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472), which it beats by 1.1%.

The verdict from the numbers is straightforward: the 945M’s 7.2% advantage over the R7 250 is larger than the margin between either card and its immediate rivals. In practical terms, the 945M is closer in performance to the GTX 950M (within 0.4%) than the R7 250 is to the 945M. The R7 250’s nearest rival grouping is dominated by cards that score below 7580, whereas the 945M’s group hovers around 8100. That is a clear separation of roughly 500 points, and it shows up as a consistent win for NVIDIA.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce 945M than the AMD Radeon R7 250 in OpenCL?

A: The 945M scores 8099 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 7.2% higher than the R7 250’s 7557. This is the only head-to-head benchmark available, and it represents a clean win for NVIDIA.

Q: Where does the Radeon R7 250 rank among its nearest rivals?

A: The R7 250 is in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 7557. It is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 (7550), 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472), but 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580).

Q: How does the GeForce 945M compare to the GeForce GTX 950M?

A: The 945M scores 8099, which is 0.4% lower than the GTX 950M’s 8135. This makes the GTX 950M the closest performing rival above the 945M, while the 945M is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GRID K2 (8080).

Q: Do both cards have the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. Both the 945M and R7 250 use DDR3 memory with a 128-bit bus, resulting in identical bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The 945M has 2 GB of memory, while the R7 250 has 1024 MB.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The GeForce 945M has a pixel rate of 16.32 GPixel/s, which is higher than the R7 250’s 14.80 GPixel/s. This aligns with the 945M’s overall compute advantage.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W, while the 945M is rated at 75 W. The AMD card also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, whereas the NVIDIA part uses an MXM module with no power connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 945M wins the only benchmark that pits these two directly against each other, and that victory extends to every raw compute metric in the specification sheet. It delivers 1,305.6 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 947.2 GFLOPS for the R7 250, a lead of roughly 38%. Its texture rate is 40.80 GTexel/s compared to 29.60 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is 16.32 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s. The 945M also has more shading units (640 vs 512) and more texture mapping units (40 vs 32), while both share 16 ROPs. For any workload that scales with shader count or texture throughput, the 945M is the clear choice.

The R7 250’s wins are not in performance but in efficiency and form factor. It draws 55 W versus 75 W for the 945M, making it the lower-power option. It is a single-slot, 168 mm (6.6 inches) PCIe card with standard display outputs, whereas the 945M is an MXM module with portable-device-dependent outputs. The R7 250 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, indicating it can drop into a modest desktop system without a high-wattage power supply. Neither card has a launch MSRP listed, so pricing is not a differentiator in the data.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge in almost every compute-relevant specification, with the 945M holding the advantage in each case. The 945M uses the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture, while the R7 250 uses Cape Verde on GCN 1.0. The process node is identical at 28 nm (TSMC), but the 945M packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, versus 1,500 million on 123 mm² for the R7 250. Transistor density is slightly higher on the 945M at 12.6M / mm² versus 12.2M / mm².

Clock speeds differ significantly: the 945M has a base clock of 928 MHz and a boost of 1020 MHz, while the R7 250 lists no base or boost clocks. Memory is another split — the 945M offers 2 GB of DDR3, while the R7 250 offers only 1024 MB, both on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The 945M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs; the R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Finally, the 945M’s TDP is 75 W versus 55 W for the R7 250, and the form factors differ entirely: MXM-B (3.0) for NVIDIA versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce 945M is built on the Maxwell architecture, with the GM107 chip and a 28 nm process from TSMC. It uses 1,870 million transistors across a 148 mm² die, reaching a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The 945M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its memory subsystem is 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, and it is designed as an MXM module with no power connectors.

The AMD Radeon R7 250 is based on GCN 1.0 with the Cape Verde chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. It has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a slightly lower density of 12.2M per mm². The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, and it uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. Its architecture is a full desktop PCIe design with a single-slot cooler, a 168 mm length, and outputs for DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and DisplayPort 1.2. The R7 250’s generation is Volcanic Islands (R7 200), while the 945M belongs to the GeForce 900M line.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce 945M is the faster part, and by a margin that matters. Its 7.2% OpenCL lead over the R7 250 is reinforced by substantial advantages in shading units, texture rate, pixel rate, and FP32 throughput. The 945M also has double the memory capacity (2 GB vs 1024 MB) and a higher transistor count, which supports its higher compute scores. For any user prioritizing raw performance in OpenCL or shader-bound workloads, the 945M is the only choice between these two.

The R7 250, however, is not without a case. It consumes 20 W less power (55 W vs 75 W), which makes it a better fit for low-power desktop builds. It also offers a standard PCIe form factor with dedicated display outputs, whereas the 945M is an MXM module that depends on the host device for connectivity. The R7 250’s nearest rivals include the GTX 1650, which it beats by 1.1%, indicating that it still holds its own in the lower performance tier.

Who should pick which? The 945M is for users who need maximum compute performance in a mobile or compact MXM form factor and can accommodate its higher 75 W TDP. The R7 250 is for users with a desktop system that requires a simple single-slot card with lower power draw and standard display outputs, accepting a 7.2% performance deficit. The benchmark data is unambiguous, but the right choice depends on whether the priority is raw score or platform compatibility.