AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL compute test, and it produces a decisive result in favor of the AMD Radeon R7 250. The AMD part scores 7557 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M scores 6389 points. This translates to an 18.3% advantage for the R7 250, a substantial margin in raw compute throughput.

This single benchmark result is consistent with the broader percentile rankings. The R7 250 sits at the 41st percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the GTX 580M sits at the 37th percentile. The gap between them, roughly four percentile points, reflects the 18.3% score differential. For context, the R7 250's closest rival, the Intel Arc A310, scores 7550 points, meaning the R7 250 is only 0.1% ahead of that part. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M, by contrast, lands exactly level with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE at 6389 points, a 0% delta.

Interestingly, the R7 250 also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, a much newer part, by 1.1% (7557 vs 7472). It trails the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 by a negligible 0.3% (7557 vs 7580). On the NVIDIA side, the GTX 580M is 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M350, but it falls 0.3% short of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell, a flagship workstation part, underscoring how tightly clustered the GTX 580M's performance neighborhood is.

The data shows a clear pattern: the R7 250 is not merely faster, it is faster by a margin that places it in a different performance tier. The 18.3% delta in the head-to-head is the single most important number in this comparison, as it dominates any architectural or feature-level considerations.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R7 250 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, specifically using the Cape Verde chip, and belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture, built on the GF114 chip, and belongs to the GeForce 500M generation.

The manufacturing process is a major differentiator. The R7 250 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the GTX 580M uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process advantage allows the R7 250 to pack 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 580M, despite having more transistors overall at 1,950 million, spreads them across a much larger 332 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The R7 250's density is more than double that of the GTX 580M, a direct consequence of the newer process node.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The R7 250 comes with 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), producing a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The GTX 580M offers 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, running at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), producing a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA part has a 3.33x bandwidth advantage, which is critical for texture-heavy workloads, but the AMD part compensates with higher raw compute rates in the benchmark.

Compute resources are distributed differently. The R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The GTX 580M has 384 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the GTX 580M has twice the TMUs and twice the ROPs. This explains why the GTX 580M achieves a texture rate of 39.68 GTexel/s, which is 34% higher than the R7 250's 29.60 GTexel/s, and a pixel rate of 9.920 GPixel/s, which is actually lower than the R7 250's 14.80 GPixel/s due to clock differences.

The FP32 compute figures are remarkably close: the R7 250 delivers 947.2 GFLOPS, while the GTX 580M delivers 952.3 GFLOPS, a difference of less than 1%. This near-parity in theoretical FP32 throughput makes the 18.3% OpenCL score gap even more striking, suggesting that the R7 250 extracts higher real-world efficiency from its GCN architecture, or that the benchmark favors its specific instruction scheduling.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W and is a single-slot card, 168 mm long (6.6 inches), requiring no external power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 580M has a TDP of 100 W, is an MXM module, and draws power directly from the host system, with no dedicated power connectors.

API support shows a generational gap. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 580M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The R7 250 also has a newer bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x16) compared to the GTX 580M's MXM-B (3.0), though the latter is a mobile form factor, not directly comparable.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 250 wins in compute throughput, as demonstrated by the 18.3% OpenCL advantage. This makes it the better choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks, OpenCL acceleration, and any workload that leverages the 512 shading units efficiently. Its GCN 1.0 architecture also brings modern API support, including Vulkan 1.2.170, which the GTX 580M lacks entirely. For users running Vulkan-based applications or games, the R7 250 is the only option between the two.

The R7 250 also wins on power efficiency. At 55 W TDP versus 100 W, it delivers nearly identical FP32 throughput (947.2 vs 952.3 GFLOPS) at nearly half the power draw. This makes it suitable for systems with modest power supplies, such as the 250 W suggested PSU, and for compact single-slot installations. Its smaller physical footprint, 168 mm length, and no power connector requirement simplify installation in small form factor cases.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. With 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, it offers 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 3.33x higher than the R7 250's 28.80 GB/s. This is a decisive advantage for workloads that are bandwidth-bound, such as high-resolution texture streaming, large framebuffer operations, or data-intensive compute tasks that exceed the R7 250's 1 GB memory pool. The GTX 580M's 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs also give it a 34% higher texture fill rate (39.68 vs 29.60 GTexel/s), making it stronger for traditional rasterization workloads that rely on texture fetch throughput.

The GTX 580M's 2 GB memory capacity is particularly relevant for modern workloads where 1 GB is a hard constraint. The R7 250 will run into memory capacity limits sooner, potentially forcing lower resolution textures or reduced detail settings in memory-heavy scenarios.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear overall winner for compute-oriented tasks: the AMD Radeon R7 250. Its 7557 OpenCL score versus 6389 for the GTX 580M, an 18.3% margin, is the most significant single datapoint in this comparison. The R7 250 also achieves this at a lower TDP (55 W vs 100 W), with a newer architecture (GCN 1.0 vs Fermi 2.0), a smaller die (123 mm² vs 332 mm²), and broader API support including Vulkan.

However, the verdict is not universal. The GTX 580M retains clear advantages in memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s), memory capacity (2 GB vs 1 GB), and texture throughput (39.68 GTexel/s vs 29.60 GTexel/s). For workloads that are heavily memory-bound or texture-bound, the GTX 580M's architectural strengths could reverse the outcome, even though its raw compute score is lower.

The data suggests that a user prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, modern API compatibility, and power efficiency should choose the R7 250. A user who needs maximum memory bandwidth and capacity, particularly for large datasets or high-resolution textures, and who can tolerate a 100 W power draw in an MXM form factor, should choose the GTX 580M. The R7 250 is the better all-around part for general use; the GTX 580M is specialized for bandwidth-heavy scenarios.

Neither GPU is current, both are end-of-life, and both have percentile rankings below the 50th mark (41st and 37th respectively). The R7 250's lead in the database's single benchmark is decisive, but the GTX 580M's memory subsystem ensures it remains competitive in specific niches.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M scores 6389 points, giving the R7 250 an 18.3% advantage.

Q: How does the R7 250 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The R7 250 is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 (7550), 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472), 1.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447), and 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580).

Q: How does the GTX 580M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 580M is exactly level with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE (6389), 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6330), 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6327), and 0.3% behind the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell (6407).

Q: What are the memory differences between the two GPUs?

A: The R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 580M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, a 3.33x advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the AMD Radeon R7 250 supports Vulkan, with version 1.2.170. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M has no Vulkan support listed in the database.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The R7 250 has a 55 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, while the GTX 580M has a 100 W TDP and has no suggested PSU listed, as it is an MXM module.