AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti and the AMD Radeon R7 250 is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result favors NVIDIA by a meaningful margin. The GTX 650 Ti scores 7,877 points, while the R7 250 trails at 7,557 points, giving NVIDIA a 4.2% advantage in raw compute performance. That delta is modest in absolute terms, but it translates into a clear win in the head-to-head tally: the GTX 650 Ti takes 1 win, while the R7 250 takes 0.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the GTX 650 Ti's average benchmark score of 8,053 places it in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 250's average of 7,557 puts it in the 41st percentile. That one-percentile gap confirms the NVIDIA card is slightly ahead, but both cards sit in the lower-middle tier of the performance spectrum. The GTX 650 Ti's nearest rivals—the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (8,040, 0.2% behind), the GTX 650 Ti Boost (8,067, 0.2% ahead), the Quadro P5000 (8,039, 0.2% behind), and the GRID K2 (8,080, 0.3% ahead)—show just how tightly clustered this performance bracket is. The R7 250, by contrast, sits near the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, 0.1% behind), the Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580, 0.3% ahead), the GTX 1650 (7,472, 1.1% behind), and the Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, 1.5% behind).

The GTX 650 Ti also holds a second benchmark card: its Geekbench Vulkan score of 8,229, which the R7 250 does not have a corresponding result for. That Vulkan score sits notably higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the Kepler architecture handles the Vulkan API efficiently. The R7 250 has no Vulkan benchmark data in the pack, so a direct comparison on that API is not possible, but the NVIDIA card's Vulkan result is over 4% higher than its own OpenCL score, indicating strong API-level scaling.

When interpreting the OpenCL delta, a 4.2% lead is not a generational gap, but it is consistent and reproducible across the architecture differences between the two cards. The GTX 650 Ti's higher shading unit count (768 vs 512) and texture unit count (64 vs 32) explain much of the compute advantage, even though the R7 250's GCN architecture is newer in design philosophy. The data shows a clear, if narrow, NVIDIA victory in every measurable head-to-head comparison.

# Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural lineages, and those differences explain the benchmark results. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK106S chip, and belongs to the GeForce 600 generation. The AMD Radeon R7 250 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Cape Verde chip, part of the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. Both are fabricated on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but that is where the manufacturing similarities end.

The transistor counts diverge significantly. The GTX 650 Ti packs 2,540 million transistors onto a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The R7 250, by contrast, uses 1,500 million transistors on a much smaller 123 mm² die, achieving a slightly higher density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is physically larger and more complex, which aligns with its higher compute throughput.

Shading unit counts tell a stark story: the GTX 650 Ti has 768 shading units, while the R7 250 has only 512. The gap widens in texture units, where NVIDIA leads 64 to 32, though both cards have 16 ROPs. This configuration gives the GTX 650 Ti a texture rate of 59.39 GTexel/s versus the R7 250's 29.60 GTexel/s—exactly double. Pixel rates are nearly identical, with the GTX 650 Ti at 14.85 GPixel/s and the R7 250 at 14.80 GPixel/s, since both have 16 ROPs and similar clock behavior.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The GTX 650 Ti uses 1,024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, clocked at 1,350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), delivering 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 250 also has 1,024 MB on a 128-bit bus, but it uses DDR3 memory at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective), yielding just 28.80 GB/s—one-third of NVIDIA's bandwidth. This bandwidth disparity is arguably the single biggest architectural gap between the two cards and will manifest in texture-heavy or high-resolution workloads.

Compute performance follows the same pattern. The GTX 650 Ti delivers 1,425.4 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the R7 250 manages 947.2 GFLOPS. That is a 50.5% advantage for NVIDIA in raw floating-point math. Neither card has dedicated RT or tensor cores, as both predate those features. API support shows minor differences: the GTX 650 Ti supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD card has a slightly higher DirectX feature level, but the NVIDIA card carries a marginally newer Vulkan patch version.

Power characteristics differ dramatically. The GTX 650 Ti has a TDP of 110 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector, with a suggested 300 W power supply. The R7 250 sips just 55 W, needs no power connectors, and runs on a suggested 250 W PSU. Both are single-slot cards, but the GTX 650 Ti measures 145 mm (5.7 inches) in length, while the R7 250 is longer at 168 mm (6.6 inches). Display outputs also differ: NVIDIA offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a, while AMD provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

# FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 7,877 versus 7,557 for the AMD Radeon R7 250, a 4.2% advantage.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 650 Ti has 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth from its GDDR5 memory, while the R7 250 has only 28.80 GB/s from DDR3—making NVIDIA's card exactly three times faster in this metric.

Q: Does the R7 250 consume less power?

A: Yes, significantly. The R7 250 has a 55 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the GTX 650 Ti has a 110 W TDP and needs a single 6-pin connector. The R7 250 also suggests a 250 W PSU versus 300 W for NVIDIA.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 650 Ti has 768 shading units, while the R7 250 has 512. NVIDIA also doubles the texture unit count at 64 versus 32.

Q: What are the release dates for these cards?

A: The GTX 650 Ti launched on October 8, 2012, while the R7 250 followed on October 7, 2013—almost exactly one year later.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but with different feature levels. The GTX 650 Ti supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), giving AMD a slight edge in that API.

# Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti and the AMD Radeon R7 250:

• Chip: GK106S (NVIDIA) vs Cape Verde (AMD)
• Architecture: Kepler vs GCN 1.0
• Generation: GeForce 600 vs Volcanic Islands (R7 200)
• Transistors: 2,540 million vs 1,500 million
• Die Size: 221 mm² vs 123 mm²
• Transistor Density: 11.5M / mm² vs 12.2M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 1,350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) vs 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective)
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs DDR3
• Memory Bandwidth: 86.40 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s
• Shading Units: 768 vs 512
• TMUs: 64 vs 32
• Pixel Rate: 14.85 GPixel/s vs 14.80 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 59.39 GTexel/s vs 29.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,425.4 GFLOPS vs 947.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: 110 W vs 55 W
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin vs None
• Suggested PSU: 300 W vs 250 W
• Display Outputs: 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a vs 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2
• Dimensions (Length): 145 mm (5.7 inches) vs 168 mm (6.6 inches)
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.175 vs 1.2.170
• Release Date: October 8, 2012 vs October 7, 2013
• Predecessor: GeForce 500 vs Sea Islands
• Successor: GeForce 700 vs Pirate Islands
• Launch MSRP: 149 USD (GTX 650 Ti only; R7 250 has no listed price)
• Geekbench OpenCL: 7,877 vs 7,557
• Geekbench Vulkan: 8,229 (GTX 650 Ti only)
• Average Benchmark Score: 8,053 vs 7,557
• Percentile: 42 vs 41

# The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti is the stronger performer in every measurable benchmark category. It wins the only direct head-to-head test by 4.2%, delivers triple the memory bandwidth (86.40 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s), offers 50.5% more FP32 compute (1,425.4 GFLOPS vs 947.2 GFLOPS), and doubles the texture fill rate (59.39 GTexel/s vs 29.60 GTexel/s). Its average benchmark score of 8,053 versus 7,557, and its 42nd versus 41st percentile ranking, both confirm the same narrative.

The GTX 650 Ti is the pick for anyone prioritizing compute performance, texture-heavy workloads, or memory bandwidth. Its GDDR5 memory alone makes it a fundamentally more capable card for modern game textures or OpenCL compute tasks. The Vulkan score of 8,229 further suggests the NVIDIA card handles newer APIs well, even if the R7 250 counters with a slightly higher DirectX 12 feature level (11_1 vs 11_0).

However, the AMD Radeon R7 250 has a compelling counterargument in power efficiency. At 55 W TDP versus 110 W, it draws exactly half the power, requires no auxiliary power connectors, and can run on a 250 W PSU instead of 300 W. For a compact system, a pre-built office PC, or a build where power delivery is limited, the R7 250 is the safer choice. It is also physically longer (168 mm vs 145 mm), but that is unlikely to matter in most cases.

The R7 250's launch date of October 2013 also makes it a year newer, though that has not translated into a performance advantage. The GTX 650 Ti's launch MSRP of 149 USD was higher than the R7 250's unlisted price, but the benchmark data shows that premium bought real performance.

The verdict is nuanced but clear: if raw performance is the goal, the GTX 650 Ti wins decisively. If power draw and thermal output are the constraints, the R7 250 is the rational pick. The data does not support choosing the R7 250 for performance reasons—it simply loses on every compute and memory metric. The GTX 650 Ti is the better GPU for anyone who can supply 110 W of power and a 6-pin connector, while the R7 250 serves the low-power niche where performance is secondary to efficiency.