AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 250 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M represent two distinct approaches to mobile and desktop graphics from the early-to-mid 2010s. Benchmark data from Geekbench OpenCL places the R7 250 ahead of the GTX 675M, with the AMD card scoring 7557 against the NVIDIA card’s 6946, a difference of 8.8 percent. While neither card is competitive in modern terms—both sit below the 41st percentile of all GPUs—the data reveals a clear winner in raw compute performance, despite significant architectural and specification differences that favor the NVIDIA part on paper in several areas.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it decisively favors the AMD Radeon R7 250. The R7 250 scores 7557, while the GeForce GTX 675M trails at 6946. This 8.8 percent delta translates to a 611-point absolute gap, which is substantial enough to place the two cards in different performance tiers among their nearest rivals.

The R7 250’s score of 7557 places it within a tight cluster of competitors. It is a mere 0.1 percent ahead of the Intel Arc A310 (7550) and 0.3 percent behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580). More notably, it sits 1.1 percent above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472), a much more modern card, and 1.5 percent above the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447). This clustering suggests the R7 250 performs at a level that remained relevant for several generations after its release.

The GTX 675M’s score of 6946, by contrast, places it in a lower tier. It is 0.4 percent behind the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6975) and 1.1 percent behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7023). The gap widens against the NVIDIA T600 (7035), which is 1.3 percent faster, while the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830) trails the GTX 675M by 1.7 percent. The data indicates that the GTX 675M’s compute performance is roughly comparable to entry-level mobile parts from several years later, whereas the R7 250 keeps pace with more recent desktop offerings.

The 8.8 percent win for AMD is notable because the GTX 675M possesses specifications that would normally suggest superiority in certain workloads. The NVIDIA card has double the memory capacity (2 GB vs 1024 MB), a 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit, and over three times the memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s). Yet in the OpenCL compute test, these advantages did not translate to a higher score, indicating that the R7 250’s architecture is more efficient at executing the specific workloads in the benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The R7 250 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture using the Cape Verde chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 675M uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF114 chip, fabricated on an older 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process difference is significant: the R7 250 packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The GTX 675M contains 1,950 million transistors on a much larger 332 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 5.9 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ in configuration. The R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 675M has 384 shading units but doubles the TMUs to 64 and doubles the ROPs to 32. This configuration gives the NVIDIA card higher texture fill rates (39.68 GTexel/s vs 29.60 GTexel/s) but lower pixel fill rates (9.920 GPixel/s vs 14.80 GPixel/s). The R7 250’s FP32 performance is 947.2 GFLOPS, marginally ahead of the GTX 675M’s 952.3 GFLOPS—a difference of just 0.5 percent.

Memory architecture represents the largest divergence. The R7 250 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), producing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 675M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, running at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), producing 96.00 GB/s—a 3.3x advantage in raw bandwidth. However, the benchmark results suggest that the R7 250’s memory efficiency, combined with its newer process node, compensates for the bandwidth deficit in compute workloads.

API support and power characteristics also differ. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 675M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support listed. The R7 250 consumes 55 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the GTX 675M draws 100 W and is designed as an MXM module. The AMD card uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the NVIDIA card uses MXM-B (3.0), reflecting its laptop-oriented design.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear winner for compute-oriented tasks: the AMD Radeon R7 250. Its 8.8 percent lead in Geekbench OpenCL is consistent across its position relative to rivals, where it sits within 1.5 percent of cards like the GTX 1650 and Arc A310. The GTX 675M, meanwhile, clusters with lower-performing parts like the R5 M240 and FirePro M5100. For anyone prioritizing raw compute performance as measured by OpenCL, the R7 250 is the superior choice.

However, the GTX 675M is not without its merits. Its 2 GB memory capacity and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth could be advantageous in memory-bound scenarios, though no benchmark data in the pack confirms this. The NVIDIA card’s higher texture rate (39.68 GTexel/s) and double TMU count suggest it might excel in texture-heavy workloads, but again, no direct evidence supports this in the available benchmarks.

The R7 250’s advantages extend beyond raw score. Its 28 nm process and lower 55 W TDP make it a more power-efficient design. It supports Vulkan, which the GTX 675M lacks, potentially offering broader software compatibility. The R7 250 also has a smaller die (123 mm² vs 332 mm²) and higher transistor density, indicating a more modern manufacturing approach.

For users with legacy systems, the choice depends on the platform. The R7 250 is a desktop card with standard display outputs (DVI, HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort 1.2) and PCIe 3.0 x16 connectivity. The GTX 675M is an MXM module with "Portable Device Dependent" outputs, meaning it is locked into a specific laptop chassis. From a practical standpoint, the R7 250 offers greater flexibility in terms of installation and upgrade paths.

The data does not support choosing the GTX 675M for compute performance. The only scenario where it might be preferable is if a system specifically requires its memory configuration or texture throughput, but the benchmark results indicate these advantages do not translate to higher OpenCL scores. The verdict from the data is straightforward: the R7 250 is the faster card in the tested workload, and its architectural advantages in process node and efficiency make it the more future-proof option.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD Radeon R7 250 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M:

• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs Fermi 2.0
• Process Node: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• Transistors: 1,500 million vs 1,950 million
• Die Size: 123 mm² vs 332 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.2M / mm² vs 5.9M / mm²
• Memory Size: 1024 MB vs 2 GB
• Memory Type: DDR3 vs GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s
• Memory Clock: 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective vs 750 MHz / 3 Gbps effective
• Shading Units: 512 vs 384
• TMUs: 32 vs 64
• ROPs: 16 vs 32
• Pixel Rate: 14.80 GPixel/s vs 9.920 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 29.60 GTexel/s vs 39.68 GTexel/s
• FP32: 947.2 GFLOPS vs 952.3 GFLOPS
• TDP: 55 W vs 100 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs MXM Module
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs MXM-B (3.0)
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 vs Portable Device Dependent
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.170 vs None
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_1) vs 12 (11_0)
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs None listed
• Release Date: 2013-10-07 vs 2012-03-21
• Predecessor: Sea Islands vs GeForce 500M
• Successor: Pirate Islands vs GeForce 700M

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557, which is 8.8 percent higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M’s score of 6946.

Q: How does the R7 250 compare to the GTX 1650?

A: The R7 250 is 1.1 percent faster than the GTX 1650 in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 7557 versus 7472.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 675M has a 256-bit bus with GDDR5 memory providing 96.00 GB/s, while the R7 250 has a 128-bit bus with DDR3 providing 28.80 GB/s, giving the NVIDIA card a 3.3x bandwidth advantage.

Q: Does the GTX 675M support Vulkan?

A: No Vulkan support is listed for the GTX 675M. The R7 250 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The R7 250 has 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter, while the GTX 675M has 5.9 million per square millimeter, due to the R7 250’s smaller 28 nm process.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each card?

A: The R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W with no power connectors required, while the GTX 675M has a TDP of 100 W and also uses no power connectors, though it is an MXM module.