AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU scores higher in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7,557, which is 5.4% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE’s 7,171. This is the only head-to-head benchmark in the data, and it gives the AMD card a 1–0 win tally.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals in overall performance?

A: The R7 250 sits in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rival being the Intel Arc A310 (score 7,550) at a 0.1% delta, meaning the two are essentially tied. The GTX 560 SE is in the 39th percentile, and its closest competitor is the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (score 7,170), with a 0% delta.

Q: What memory types and bus widths do these two cards use?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 uses 1,024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE also has 1,024 MB, but it uses GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, giving it 91.87 GB/s — over three times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count and larger die size?

A: The GTX 560 SE has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, while the R7 250 has 1,500 million on a 123 mm² die. The NVIDIA chip is larger in both absolute transistor count and physical area, but the AMD chip packs transistors much more densely at 12.2M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm².

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The R7 250 has a 55 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 560 SE has a 150 W TDP, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and needs a 450 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA card is significantly more power-hungry.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate, and which has a higher texture fill rate?

A: The R7 250 achieves 14.80 GPixel/s, nearly double the GTX 560 SE’s 8.832 GPixel/s. However, the GTX 560 SE wins in texture rate with 35.33 GTexel/s versus the R7 250’s 29.60 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different GPU architectures from two separate manufacturing generations. The AMD Radeon R7 250 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Cape Verde chip, and belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF114 chip, belonging to the GeForce 500 generation, and is built on a much older 40 nm process, also at TSMC.

The manufacturing process difference is stark: the R7 250’s die is 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors, achieving a density of 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 560 SE’s die is 332 mm² with 1,950 million transistors, but its density is only 5.9 million per mm². This means the AMD chip crams nearly twice as many transistors per area despite having fewer total transistors.

The compute resources are organized differently. The R7 250 features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 560 SE has 288 shading units (fewer than the AMD), but more TMUs at 48 and more ROPs at 24. This divergence explains the fill rate differences: the R7 250 leads in pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s vs 8.832 GPixel/s), while the GTX 560 SE leads in texture rate (35.33 GTexel/s vs 29.60 GTexel/s). The FP32 compute figures are close: 947.2 GFLOPS for the AMD versus 847.9 GFLOPS for the NVIDIA.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The R7 250 uses 1,024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s. The GTX 560 SE uses 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 91.87 GB/s — a massive 3.2x bandwidth advantage. This is a classic trade-off: the newer AMD card relies on higher compute density, while the older NVIDIA card compensates with faster memory.

API support differs in key ways. Both support DirectX 12, but the R7 250 supports feature level 11_1, while the GTX 560 SE supports 11_0. Both have OpenGL 4.6. The R7 250 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the GTX 560 SE has no Vulkan support listed. The AMD card also offers a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus the NVIDIA card’s PCIe 2.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single benchmark in the head-to-head set is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7,557 against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE’s 7,171. The AMD card wins by 5.4%. This is a meaningful but not overwhelming margin — it suggests the R7 250 has a solid compute advantage in OpenCL workloads, but not a generational leap.

Context from the nearestRivals data adds perspective. The R7 250’s score is within 0.1% of the Intel Arc A310 (7,550) and just 0.3% below the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580). It also beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472) by 1.1%. The GTX 560 SE’s score of 7,171 places it exactly level with the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7,170) and just 0.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (7,157). It trails the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203) by 0.4%.

So while the head-to-head delta is only 5.4%, the two cards occupy slightly different performance tiers overall. The R7 250 at the 41st percentile clusters with newer, more capable parts, while the GTX 560 SE at the 39th percentile sits among older and low-power integrated solutions. The benchmark data suggests the AMD card is not just faster in absolute terms; it is also better positioned relative to its contemporary competition.

The architecture differences help explain this outcome. The R7 250’s higher shading unit count (512 vs 288) and its newer GCN design likely drive its OpenCL advantage. However, the GTX 560 SE’s much higher memory bandwidth (91.87 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s) did not translate into a benchmark win in this test, which may indicate that the OpenCL workload was compute-bound rather than memory-bound.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced picture. The AMD Radeon R7 250 wins the only available head-to-head benchmark, scoring 5.4% higher in Geekbench OpenCL. It also holds a higher percentile ranking (41st vs 39th) among all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are generally newer or more capable parts. If the selection criterion is raw compute performance in OpenCL, the R7 250 is the better choice.

However, the GTX 560 SE is not without merits. Its memory bandwidth is 3.2x higher (91.87 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s), which could matter in bandwidth-sensitive workloads that are not captured by the single benchmark in the data. It also has more texture mapping units (48 vs 32) and ROPs (24 vs 16), giving it a higher texture fill rate (35.33 GTexel/s vs 29.60 GTexel/s). The NVIDIA card’s 150 W TDP and dual-slot design suggest it was built for more demanding use, though this also implies higher power draw.

For users prioritizing compute performance, lower power consumption, and modern API support (including Vulkan), the R7 250 is the data-backed winner. For users who might benefit from higher memory bandwidth and texture throughput, the GTX 560 SE offers specific advantages, but the benchmark evidence does not show these translating into a win. The overall verdict from the data: the R7 250 is the stronger card in general compute, while the GTX 560 SE remains competitive in specific fill-rate and memory scenarios.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi 2.0 |

| Generation | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) | GeForce 500 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

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

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 332 mm² |

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

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective | 957 MHz / 3.8 Gbps effective |

| Bus Width | 128 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 91.87 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 288 |

| TMUs | 32 | 48 |

| ROPs | 16 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.80 GPixel/s | 8.832 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 29.60 GTexel/s | 35.33 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 947.2 GFLOPS | 847.9 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 150 W |

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

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

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

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

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | None |

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

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon R7 250 wins on: The only head-to-head benchmark — Geekbench OpenCL — by 5.4%. It also wins on compute throughput (FP32 at 947.2 GFLOPS vs 847.9 GFLOPS), pixel fill rate (14.80 GPixel/s vs 8.832 GPixel/s), and shading unit count (512 vs 288). It wins on power efficiency with a 55 W TDP versus 150 W, and on modern connectivity with PCIe 3.0, DisplayPort 1.2, and Vulkan support. Its smaller 168 mm length makes it a better fit for compact builds, and it requires no power connectors.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE wins on: Memory bandwidth by a wide margin — 91.87 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s, a 3.2x advantage. It wins on texture fill rate (35.33 GTexel/s vs 29.60 GTexel/s), texture mapping units (48 vs 32), and ROPs (24 vs 16). Its GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus provides a bandwidth advantage that the R7 250 cannot match. It also has a higher memory clock at 957 MHz versus 900 MHz, and its larger die (332 mm²) houses more total transistors (1,950 million).

Use-case split based on the data: The R7 250 is the better choice for general-purpose compute, OpenCL workloads, and any scenario where lower power draw and compact physical size are priorities. Its higher pixel rate suggests it may handle certain rasterization tasks well. The GTX 560 SE, with its vastly superior memory bandwidth, could be preferable in memory-bound scenarios like high-resolution texture streaming or specific compute tasks that saturate bandwidth — though the single available benchmark does not demonstrate this advantage in practice. The data shows the R7 250 winning the only measured test, but the GTX 560 SE’s bandwidth and texture capabilities remain its distinct strengths.