AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 250 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 are two entry-level discrete GPUs separated by more than seven years of silicon development, and the recorded data shows a matchup where the older card actually wins the one benchmark both share. The R7 250 posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 7557 against 6698 for the GT 1010, a 12.8 percent advantage, despite the NVIDIA part being built on a far denser process node. What follows breaks down where each card wins on paper, how their architectures differ, and what the numbers say about real-world positioning. Both cards are end-of-life products, so this analysis is retrospective rather than a purchase recommendation.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives the R7 250 the only recorded win in this matchup. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 7557 beats the GT 1010's 6698 by 12.8 percent, and its percentile ranking against all GPUs in the database reflects that: the R7 250 sits at the 41st percentile while the GT 1010 sits at the 38th. The R7 250 also holds raw compute and rasterization advantages that support that result, with 947.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus 751.6 GFLOPS, a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s versus 11.74 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s versus 23.49 GTexel/s. Doubling the shading units (512 against 256), TMUs (32 against 16), and ROPs (16 against 8) translates directly into those higher theoretical rates.

The GT 1010 wins everywhere the spreadsheet does not measure directly. It is the newer card by a wide margin, released 2021-01-12 versus 2013-10-07 for the R7 250, and that shows up in feature support. It offers DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level versus 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170, and HDMI 2.0 output versus HDMI 1.4a. It also doubles memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1024 MB, uses faster GDDR5 versus DDR3, and delivers substantially more memory bandwidth: 48.06 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. For display duties, light desktop workloads, and anything memory-bound, the GT 1010's advantages matter more than raw shading throughput. It also draws less power, with a 30 W TDP against 55 W, and needs only a 200 W suggested PSU versus 250 W.

Architecture Differences

These two cards come from entirely different design eras. The R7 250 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture on the Cape Verde chip, part of the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation, fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process. The GT 1010 uses NVIDIA's Pascal architecture on the GP108 chip, from the GeForce 10 generation, fabricated at Samsung on a 14 nm process. The node gap is dramatic: the GT 1010 packs 1,800 million transistors into 74 mm² for a density of 24.3M per mm², while the R7 250 fits 1,500 million transistors into 123 mm² at 12.2M per mm². NVIDIA achieves roughly double the density while still spending more transistors overall, which is how the GT 1010 reaches higher clock speeds (1228 MHz base, 1468 MHz boost) on a 30 W TDP, while the R7 250 has no recorded base or boost clock at all and consumes 55 W.

The R7 250 counters with a much wider execution and memory configuration. It has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, exactly double the GT 1010's 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, plus a 128 bit memory bus versus 64 bit. The GT 1010 compensates with memory technology: GDDR5 running at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) delivers 48.06 GB/s over the narrow bus, while the R7 250's DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) manages only 28.80 GB/s even with double the bus width. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores, as expected for their eras.

Bus interface is another meaningful split. The R7 250 connects via PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GT 1010 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x4, a quarter of the lanes. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors. The R7 250 offers more display outputs (DVI, HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort 1.2) against the GT 1010's DVI and mini-HDMI 2.0. Physically, the GT 1010 is shorter at 147 mm (5.8 inches) versus 168 mm (6.6 inches). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and both are end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single shared test between these two cards, and it is decisive.

Geekbench OpenCL: the R7 250 scores 7557 and the GT 1010 scores 6698. The R7 250 wins by 12.8 percent. That margin is consistent with the theoretical compute gap, since the R7 250's 947.2 GFLOPS FP32 output exceeds the GT 1010's 751.6 GFLOPS by roughly the same proportion. In practice, the data indicates the older AMD card still delivers more raw compute throughput despite its much older process node.

Context from the rivals list reinforces the result. The R7 250's score of 7557 places it in the company of the Intel Arc A310 (7550 average, a 0.1 percent gap), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580, -0.3 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, 1.1 percent), and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, 1.5 percent). The GT 1010's 6698 puts it alongside the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6764, -1 percent), the R7 M460 (6612, 1.3 percent), the HD 7730M (6581, 1.8 percent), and the FirePro M5100 (6830, -1.9 percent). Notably, several of the GT 1010's nearest rivals are mobile parts, which signals where its performance class sits, while the R7 250's rivals include desktop cards like the GTX 1650.

Against the full GPU database, the R7 250 ranks at the 41st percentile and the GT 1010 at the 38th. Three percentile points apart is a modest separation, but combined with the 12.8 percent head-to-head win and the wins count of 1 to 0 in the R7 250's favor, the benchmark data points clearly to the AMD card as the faster compute performer of the pair.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in benchmarks?

A: The Radeon R7 250. It scores 7557 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 6698 for the GT 1010, a 12.8 percent advantage, and it leads 1-0 in recorded head-to-head wins.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The GT 1010, with 2 GB of GDDR5 and 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth, versus 1024 MB of DDR3 and 28.80 GB/s on the R7 250.

Q: Which card uses less power?

A: The GT 1010, with a 30 W TDP and a 200 W suggested PSU, versus 55 W and a 250 W suggested PSU for the R7 250. Neither requires a power connector.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life. The R7 250 launched 2013-10-07 and the GT 1010 launched 2021-01-12.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The GT 1010. It supports DirectX 12 feature level 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, versus 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170 on the R7 250. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Which has the smaller physical footprint?

A: The GT 1010 at 147 mm (5.8 inches) long, versus 168 mm (6.6 inches) for the R7 250. Both are single-slot cards.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon R7 250 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 |

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

| Chip | Cape Verde | GP108 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Pascal |

| Generation | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) | GeForce 10 |

| Process node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 1,800 million |

| Die size | 123 mm² | 74 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.2M / mm² | 24.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | Not recorded | 1228 MHz |

| Boost clock | Not recorded | 1468 MHz |

| Memory clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Bus width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 48.06 GB/s |

| Shading units | 512 | 256 |

| TMUs | 32 | 16 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel rate | 14.80 GPixel/s | 11.74 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 29.60 GTexel/s | 23.49 GTexel/s |

| FP32 throughput | 947.2 GFLOPS | 751.6 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 30 W |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 200 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Display outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 2.0 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Length | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | 147 mm (5.8 inches) |

| Release date | 2013-10-07 | 2021-01-12 |

| Predecessor | Sea Islands | GeForce 900 |

| Successor | Pirate Islands | GeForce 20 |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 7557 | 6698 |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 41 | 38 |