AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single shared benchmark between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX and the AMD Radeon R7 250: Geekbench OpenCL. The results are decisive. The GTX 675MX scores 10,723 points, while the R7 250 manages 7,557 points. That gives the NVIDIA part a 41.9% advantage in this compute workload, a substantial margin that separates the two cards by a clear tier.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the GTX 675MX sits at 8,427 points, which places it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs tracked. The R7 250, by contrast, averages 7,557 points and lands in the 41st percentile. The raw gap in the head-to-head test is far larger than the average score gap would suggest, so the Geekbench OpenCL result is not a fluke; it reflects the GTX 675MX's stronger compute throughput in this specific API.

Context from the nearest rivals helps frame these numbers. The GTX 675MX's average score of 8,427 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon 880M (8,436, a delta of -0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458, a delta of -0.4%). It also edges out the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462, -0.4%) and beats the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8,325, +1.2%). In other words, the GTX 675MX is right in the middle of a cluster of mobile and entry-level desktop parts, with no single rival more than 1.2% away in either direction.

The R7 250's average of 7,557 sits in a similar neighborhood to its own rivals. The Intel Arc A310 scores 7,550 (0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 scores 7,580 (0.3% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,472 (1.1% behind), and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7,447 (1.5% behind). So the R7 250 is effectively a peer of these four cards, none of which are separated from it by more than 1.5%. The takeaway: the GTX 675MX competes in a higher performance bracket, roughly 11% to 12% above the R7 250's average score, while the head-to-head OpenCL test shows an even larger 41.9% gap.

The measured Geekbench OpenCL numbers also highlight a difference in efficiency of execution. The GTX 675MX achieves its 10,723 score with 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The R7 250 counters with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Although the R7 250 has a higher pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s versus 13.08 GPixel/s), the GTX 675MX dominates texture rate (52.32 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s) and FP32 compute (1,255.7 GFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS). Those resource advantages directly explain the OpenCL result.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX wins Geekbench OpenCL with 10,723 points against the AMD Radeon R7 250's 7,557 points, a 41.9% advantage.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two cards?

A: The GTX 675MX has an average benchmark score of 8,427, while the R7 250 averages 7,557. The GTX 675MX also sits higher in the overall GPU percentile ranking at 43rd, versus 41st for the R7 250.

Q: What are the closest competitors to each card according to the database?

A: For the GTX 675MX, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon 880M (8,436, -0.1%), NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458, -0.4%), AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462, -0.4%), and AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8,325, +1.2%). For the R7 250, they are the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, +0.1%), AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580, -0.3%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472, +1.1%), and AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, +1.5%).

Q: Does the R7 250 beat the GTX 675MX in any measured metric?

A: Yes. The R7 250 has a higher pixel rate at 14.80 GPixel/s compared to the GTX 675MX's 13.08 GPixel/s. It also has a lower TDP of 55 W versus 100 W.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The GTX 675MX uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 250 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture units?

A: The GTX 675MX has 960 shading units and 80 TMUs. The R7 250 has 512 shading units and 32 TMUs.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 675MX wins the compute workload by a wide margin. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 10,723 is 41.9% above the R7 250's 7,557. This is the only direct benchmark comparison in the database, and the NVIDIA card takes it decisively. The resource counts back this up: the GTX 675MX has nearly double the shading units (960 versus 512), more than double the TMUs (80 versus 32), twice the ROPs (32 versus 16), and a substantially higher texture rate (52.32 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s). FP32 throughput also favors it, 1,255.7 GFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS.

The R7 250, however, is not without its own advantages. It achieves a higher pixel rate, 14.80 GPixel/s versus 13.08 GPixel/s, meaning it can fill more pixels per second despite having fewer ROPs. Its power draw is also far lower at 55 W versus 100 W, which makes it a lighter load for a desktop power supply, and its suggested PSU of 250 W reflects that modest requirement. The R7 250 also comes in a standard single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 form factor with discrete display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), while the GTX 675MX is an MXM module with portable-device-dependent outputs.

For use-case planning, the GTX 675MX is the stronger compute performer, but it is locked into a laptop or modular form factor. The R7 250 is a desktop card that can slot into a standard PCIe slot and run off a modest power supply. If the workload is OpenCL-heavy and the platform can accept an MXM module, the GTX 675MX is the clear choice. If the requirement is a low-power desktop card with standard outputs, the R7 250 fits that role even though it loses the compute race.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX | AMD Radeon R7 250 |

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

| Chip | GK104 | Cape Verde |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | GeForce 600M | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 960 | 512 |

| TMUs | 80 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 13.08 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 52.32 GTexel/s | 29.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,255.7 GFLOPS | 947.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2012-09-30 | 2013-10-07 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 500M | Sea Islands |

| Successor | GeForce 700M | Pirate Islands |

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different designers and different underlying architectures. The GTX 675MX uses NVIDIA's Kepler architecture on a GK104 chip, built at TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The R7 250 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture on a Cape Verde chip, also at TSMC on 28 nm. It has 1,500 million transistors on a much smaller 123 mm² die, with a slightly higher transistor density of 12.2 million per mm².

The memory subsystem is a major architectural split. The GTX 675MX uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 250 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, which gives only 28.80 GB/s. That is a fourfold difference in memory bandwidth, and it directly affects texture-heavy and compute-heavy workloads. The GTX 675MX's GDDR5 is also clocked at 900 MHz with 3.6 Gbps effective, while the R7 250's DDR3 runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, half the effective data rate.

Compute resources differ in scale. The GTX 675MX has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has more of everything except pixel rate, where the R7 250's higher clock-derived fill rate (14.80 GPixel/s) edges out the GTX 675MX (13.08 GPixel/s). Texture rate, however, strongly favors the GTX 675MX at 52.32 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute also favors it, 1,255.7 GFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS.

Feature support is close but not identical. Both support DirectX 12, but the GTX 675MX implements it as 12 (11_0) while the R7 250 supports 12 (11_1). OpenGL 4.6 is common to both. Vulkan versions differ slightly: the GTX 675MX supports 1.2.175, the R7 250 supports 1.2.170. The R7 250 is a desktop card with standard display outputs and a single-slot cooler, while the GTX 675MX is an MXM module with no fixed display outputs, depending on the host device. Power delivery also differs: the GTX 675MX has a 100 W TDP and no power connectors, while the R7 250 has a 55 W TDP and no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by platform and workload. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX is the stronger compute card, winning the only head-to-head benchmark by 41.9% in Geekbench OpenCL. Its average score of 8,427 places it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all within 1.2% of that figure. The AMD Radeon R7 250 trails with an average of 7,557 in the 41st percentile, and its nearest rivals are similarly clustered within 1.5%. If the task is OpenCL compute, the GTX 675MX is the unambiguous pick.

However, the R7 250 is a far more practical desktop component. It is a single-slot, PCIe 3.0 x16 card with standard DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. Its 55 W TDP and suggested 250 W PSU make it a light addition to any desktop build. The GTX 675MX, by contrast, is an MXM-B (3.0) module with portable-device-dependent outputs, meaning it is only usable in a laptop or a chassis that accepts MXM modules. Its 100 W TDP is higher, though still connector-free.

For a builder with an MXM-compatible system who wants the best compute performance, the GTX 675MX is the answer. For a desktop user who needs a low-power, standard-interface card with modest compute needs, the R7 250 is the fit, despite losing the benchmark. The pixel rate advantage of the R7 250 (14.80 GPixel/s versus 13.08 GPixel/s) is a minor point in its favor for fill-rate-bound scenarios, but it does not offset the GTX 675MX's dominance in texture rate, FP32, memory bandwidth, and the recorded compute score. Choose based on the slot you have, not the raw numbers alone.