AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the single recorded OpenCL benchmark comparison, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 takes a clear victory over the AMD Radeon R7 250. The GTX 560 scores 9058 points, while the R7 250 trails at 7557 points, producing a 19.9% advantage for the NVIDIA card. This is a substantial margin in compute workloads, placing the older Fermi-based card well ahead of the newer GCN part.

Context from the database’s nearest rivals helps frame this result. The GTX 560 sits between the AMD Radeon 890M (9210 points, 1.7% faster) and the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition (9037 points, 0.2% slower), a remarkable positioning for a card from 2011. The GTX 560 also edges out the GeForce GTX 660 (9022 points, 0.4% faster) and comfortably beats the AMD Radeon 550X (8918 points, 1.6% slower). Meanwhile, the R7 250 lands in a lower tier, clustered around the Intel Arc A310 (7550 points, 0.1% faster) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580 points, 0.3% slower). The R7 250 does beat the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472 points, 1.1% slower) and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447 points, 1.5% slower), but those are modest wins against low-tier hardware.

The 19.9% delta between the two cards is consistent across the board in the recorded data. There are no other head-to-head tests available, so the OpenCL result stands as the sole metric for direct comparison. The GTX 560 claims the only win in this matchup, with the R7 250 registering zero wins. That said, the benchmark gap is large enough that it would likely persist across most compute-oriented workloads, though gaming performance could differ based on driver support and architecture-specific optimizations.

The percentile rankings reinforce the gap. The GTX 560 sits at the 45th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R7 250 falls to the 41st percentile. A four-percentile difference may sound small, but the score gap of 1501 points is significant in real-world terms. The GTX 560’s average benchmark score of 9058 matches its single OpenCL result, and the R7 250’s average of 7557 likewise reflects its lone entry. Both cards are end-of-life products, but the data clearly shows the GTX 560 as the stronger performer in this pairing.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 560 wins in raw compute performance, as evidenced by its 19.9% lead in OpenCL. This advantage stems from its higher bandwidth and texture throughput. The GTX 560 delivers 128.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s for the R7 250, a 4.4x difference that heavily favors the NVIDIA card in bandwidth-sensitive workloads. Its texture rate of 45.36 GTexel/s also outpaces the R7 250’s 29.60 GTexel/s by roughly 53%, making the GTX 560 better suited for tasks that stress texture fetching.

The R7 250 counters with advantages in other areas. Its pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s exceeds the GTX 560’s 11.34 GPixel/s by about 30%, suggesting the AMD card could have an edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios, though the OpenCL score does not reflect this. The R7 250 also packs 512 shading units versus 336 for the GTX 560, a 52% higher count, but the NVIDIA card’s higher clocked memory and architecture efficiency overcome that deficit in the recorded benchmark.

For use cases, the GTX 560 is the pick for compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL workloads, where its 9058 score dominates. The R7 250, with its lower power draw of 55 W versus 150 W, is better suited for systems with limited power delivery. The R7 250 requires no power connectors, while the GTX 560 needs 2x 6-pin connectors, and the AMD card’s suggested PSU is 250 W versus 450 W for the NVIDIA. The R7 250 also runs single-slot, whereas the GTX 560 is dual-slot, making the AMD card easier to fit in compact cases.

Gaming performance is not directly measured here, but the architectural differences suggest a split. The GTX 560’s higher bandwidth and texture rate likely favor games that stream large textures, while the R7 250’s higher pixel rate could help in simpler scenes with heavy overdraw. However, the R7 250’s DDR3 memory at 1800 Mbps effective is a severe handicap, and its 128-bit bus width further limits memory throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras. The GTX 560 uses NVIDIA’s Fermi 2.0 architecture on the GF114 chip, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The R7 250 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture on the Cape Verde chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The newer process node gives the R7 250 a significant transistor density advantage: 12.2M transistors per mm² versus 5.9M for the GTX 560. The GTX 560 packs 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, while the R7 250 uses 1,500 million on a much smaller 123 mm² die.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The GTX 560 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 250 also has 1024 MB but uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding only 28.80 GB/s. This is the single largest architectural differentiator and explains much of the performance gap. The GDDR5 memory clock runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) on the GTX 560, while the R7 250’s DDR3 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Compute resources differ in configuration. The GTX 560 has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 560’s higher TMU and ROP counts contribute to its 45.36 GTexel/s texture rate and 11.34 GPixel/s pixel rate. The R7 250 counters with 14.80 GPixel/s pixel rate thanks to its architecture, but its texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s falls short. FP32 compute favors the GTX 560 at 1,088.6 GFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS for the R7 250.

API support also differs. Both support DirectX 12, but the GTX 560 is limited to feature level 11_0, while the R7 250 reaches 11_1. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6. The R7 250 adds Vulkan 1.2.170 support, while the GTX 560 has no Vulkan entry in the database. The R7 250 also uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 560 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16.

Power and physical characteristics reflect the generational gap. The GTX 560 draws 150 W TDP, requires 2x 6-pin connectors, and is a dual-slot card measuring 210 mm in length. The R7 250 draws only 55 W, needs no power connectors, is single-slot, and measures 168 mm. The R7 250’s display outputs include DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 560 offers 2x DVI and mini-HDMI 1.3a.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 scores 9058 points, beating the AMD Radeon R7 250’s 7557 points by 19.9%.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The GTX 560 has 128.0 GB/s bandwidth from GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the R7 250 has 28.80 GB/s from DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: How many shading units does each card have?

A: The R7 250 has 512 shading units, while the GTX 560 has 336 shading units.

Q: Which card requires less power?

A: The R7 250 draws 55 W TDP with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the GTX 560 draws 150 W with 2x 6-pin connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The GTX 560 uses a 40 nm process, while the R7 250 uses a 28 nm process, both from TSMC.

Q: Which card has better pixel fill rate?

A: The R7 250 has a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s, exceeding the GTX 560’s 11.34 GPixel/s.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 | AMD Radeon R7 250 |

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

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GF114 | Cape Verde |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 336 | 512 |

| TMUs | 56 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.34 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 45.36 GTexel/s | 29.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,088.6 GFLOPS | 947.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 150 W | 55 W |

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

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | None | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 210 mm (8.3 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Release Date | 2011-05-16 | 2013-10-07 |

| Launch MSRP | 199 USD | Not available |

| OpenCL Score | 9058 | 7557 |

| Percentile | 45th | 41st |