AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost and AMD Radeon R7 250 are both end-of-life graphics cards from 2013, but they occupy very different performance tiers. The data shows a clear hierarchy: the GTX 650 Ti Boost delivers roughly 23% higher average benchmark scores than the R7 250, positioning it as the substantially faster option, though the R7 250 counters with a dramatically lower power footprint and a more compact physical design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it decisively favors the NVIDIA card. The GTX 650 Ti Boost scores 9,302 points, while the R7 250 manages 7,557 points. That is a delta of 23.1%, meaning the NVIDIA card processes compute workloads nearly a quarter faster than the AMD offering. For context, the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s average benchmark score across all tests is 8,067, which sits 0.2% above the GeForce GTX 650 Ti and 0.3% above the GTX 880M. The R7 250’s average score of 7,557 puts it just 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 and 1.1% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1650.

The wins column reflects this disparity: the GTX 650 Ti Boost takes 1 win in head-to-head testing, while the R7 250 records 0. The 23.1% delta in OpenCL is not a marginal gap—it is a performance chasm. In practical terms, a user running OpenCL-accelerated applications would see the GTX 650 Ti Boost finish tasks in noticeably less time. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the NVIDIA card sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 250 rests at the 41st percentile. Though the percentile difference is small, the raw score gap is significant.

The GTX 650 Ti Boost’s other benchmark results—4,858 in Geekbench Metal and 10,041 in Geekbench Vulkan—show its versatility across different compute APIs. The R7 250 has no corresponding Metal or Vulkan scores in the data, so its compute performance outside OpenCL remains unmeasured here. This lack of additional data points means the R7 250’s overall standing relies entirely on its OpenCL result, which trails the NVIDIA card’s OpenCL score by a considerable margin.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The GTX 650 Ti Boost uses NVIDIA’s GK106 chip based on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 2,540 million transistors onto a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The R7 250 uses AMD’s Cape Verde chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with 1,500 million transistors on a much smaller 123 mm² die, achieving a slightly higher density of 12.2 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ sharply. The GTX 650 Ti Boost features 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation pipelines. The R7 250 is cut down to 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 50% advantage in TMUs and ROPs for NVIDIA, and a 50% advantage in shading units as well. These hardware differences translate directly to throughput: the GTX 650 Ti Boost delivers 1.585 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and a texture rate of 66.05 GTexel/s, while the R7 250 produces 947.2 GFLOPS and 29.60 GTexel/s—roughly 60% of the NVIDIA card’s FP32 output and less than half its texture fill rate.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The GTX 650 Ti Boost uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, achieving 144.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 250 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering just 28.80 GB/s—a fifth of the NVIDIA card’s bandwidth. Memory clock speeds reflect this: the GTX 650 Ti Boost runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the R7 250’s memory operates at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). In bandwidth-sensitive workloads, this gap alone would be decisive.

Feature sets also differ. The GTX 650 Ti Boost supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support PCIe 3.0 x16, but their display outputs differ: the GTX 650 Ti Boost provides 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the R7 250 offers just 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The NVIDIA card also requires a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, whereas the R7 250 draws power from the slot alone with a 250 W suggested PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 650 Ti Boost is decisively ahead. It scores 9,302 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 7,557 for the R7 250, a 23.1% delta. Its FP32 throughput is 1.585 TFLOPS compared to 947.2 GFLOPS for the AMD card.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The GTX 650 Ti Boost uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 144.2 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 250 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has five times the memory bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 650 Ti Boost has a TDP of 134 W and requires a 6-pin power connector with a 300 W suggested PSU. The R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W, needs no power connectors, and only requires a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Do both cards support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan. The GTX 650 Ti Boost supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which card is physically larger?

A: The GTX 650 Ti Boost is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and dual-slot, while the R7 250 is 168 mm (6.6 inches) long and single-slot. The R7 250 is significantly more compact.

Q: How do these cards rank against other GPUs?

A: The GTX 650 Ti Boost sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 8,067. The R7 250 sits at the 41st percentile with an average score of 7,557. Both are near the middle of the performance distribution.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for performance-seekers: the GTX 650 Ti Boost is the faster card by every measurable compute metric. Its 23.1% lead in OpenCL, combined with 1.585 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS, 144.2 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and double the VRAM capacity, makes it the superior choice for any GPU-accelerated workload. The 64 TMUs and 24 ROPs versus 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs further cement its advantage in texture-heavy and pixel-heavy rendering. Users who need maximum throughput from a legacy card should choose the GTX 650 Ti Boost without hesitation.

However, the R7 250 wins decisively on efficiency and form factor. Its 55 W TDP is less than half the GTX 650 Ti Boost’s 134 W, and it requires no auxiliary power connector, making it a drop-in upgrade for older or low-wattage systems. Its single-slot, 168 mm design fits where the 241 mm dual-slot NVIDIA card will not. For a user with a compact chassis or a modest power supply, the R7 250 is the pragmatic pick. Its 512 shading units and 947.2 GFLOPS are modest, but its 28.80 GB/s bandwidth and 1024 MB DDR3 frame buffer are sufficient for basic display output and light compute tasks.

The percentile rankings—42nd for NVIDIA versus 41st for AMD—suggest both cards hover near the same tier of overall GPU population, but the raw scores tell a different story. The GTX 650 Ti Boost’s average of 8,067 versus the R7 250’s 7,557 represents a real, usable performance gap. There is no scenario in the data where the R7 250 outperforms the GTX 650 Ti Boost in compute; its only advantages are power draw, size, and the absence of a power connector. Choose the GTX 650 Ti Boost for performance, choose the R7 250 for low-power, space-constrained builds.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost | AMD Radeon R7 250 |

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

| Chip | GK106 | Cape Verde |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 768 | 512 |

| TMUs | 64 | 32 |

| ROPs | 24 | 16 |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 144.2 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

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

| FP32 Performance | 1.585 TFLOPS | 947.2 GFLOPS |

| Pixel Rate | 16.51 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 66.05 GTexel/s | 29.60 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 134 W | 55 W |

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

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 250 W |

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Release Date | 2013-03-25 | 2013-10-07 |

| Launch MSRP | 169 USD | Not specified |