AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 250 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware from the same era, with the former built for desktop efficiency and the latter engineered for high-performance mobile gaming. While both are now end-of-life products, their benchmark data and architectural blueprints reveal a clear hierarchy: the GTX 680M delivers significantly higher raw compute performance, though the R7 250 holds its own in specific low-power scenarios. The following analysis draws exclusively from the provided benchmark results and specification sheets to break down where each card excels.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M scores 9,230 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7,557 points. This gives the GTX 680M a decisive 18.1% lead over the R7 250, marking it as the clear winner in this head-to-head matchup. The delta is substantial enough that it represents a real performance tier gap, not a marginal difference.

Contextualizing these scores against their respective nearest rivals reinforces the picture. The R7 250’s 7,557 average score places it just 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 (7,550) and a mere 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472). It trails the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580) by 0.3%. This cluster of scores indicates the R7 250 sits in a very tight competitive band, where minor architectural differences can flip the ranking. Conversely, the GTX 680M’s 9,230 OpenCL result is a standout figure among its peers; it outperforms the NVIDIA T600 (7,035) by a massive margin, though that comparison uses the GTX 680M's average score of 7,023, which is dragged down by its weaker Metal benchmark of 4,815.

The GTX 680M’s single OpenCL victory is its only win in this comparison, yet it is a decisive one. The R7 250’s score, while respectable for its class, simply cannot match the mobile NVIDIA chip’s compute throughput. Looking at the percentile rankings, the R7 250 lands at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 680M sits just below at the 39th percentile. This is an intriguing inversion: despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test, the R7 250 has a higher overall percentile, suggesting that its average benchmark score (7,557) is more consistent than the GTX 680M’s average (7,023), which is penalized by the lower Metal score.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 680M is the undisputed champion in raw OpenCL compute performance. Its 9,230 score versus the R7 250’s 7,557 means that for any workload heavily reliant on general-purpose GPU compute—such as OpenCL-accelerated rendering, physics simulation, or data processing—the NVIDIA card will deliver roughly 22% more throughput (calculated as the inverse of the 18.1% delta). This makes it the better choice for users who prioritize peak performance in compute-heavy applications.

The R7 250, however, wins in the efficiency and form-factor arena. Its 55 W TDP is nearly half the GTX 680M’s 100 W TDP, and it requires only a 250 W suggested power supply, whereas the GTX 680M has no listed PSU requirement due to its mobile nature. The R7 250 is a single-slot desktop card with a 168 mm length (6.6 inches) and no power connectors, making it a drop-in upgrade for slim or older desktop systems. The GTX 680M, by contrast, is an MXM Module—a laptop-specific form factor—meaning it cannot be installed in a desktop at all without proprietary adapters. For users with a desktop system seeking a low-power, low-profile GPU, the R7 250 is the functional winner, even if it loses on raw speed.

In the benchmark suite, the R7 250 has zero outright wins, while the GTX 680M has one. However, the R7 250’s higher percentile rank (41 vs. 39) hints that its performance is more evenly distributed across different test types, whereas the GTX 680M’s performance varies widely—its OpenCL score is excellent, but its Metal score of 4,815 is far below its own average, indicating a significant weakness in Apple’s Metal API workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from rival manufacturers. The R7 250 uses AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) 1.0 architecture, specifically the Cape Verde chip, which belongs to the Volcanic Islands generation (R7 200 series). The GTX 680M uses NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, built around the GK104 chip from the GeForce 600M generation. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, giving them identical transistor density figures—the R7 250 has 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter, and the GTX 680M has 12.0 million—but the physical scale is vastly different.

The R7 250’s Cape Verde die is 123 mm² and contains 1,500 million transistors. The GTX 680M’s GK104 die is a massive 294 mm², packing 3,540 million transistors—more than double the transistor count. This size difference directly translates into compute resources: the R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs), while the GTX 680M features 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA card has 2.6 times the shading units, 3.5 times the TMUs, and twice the ROPs, explaining its substantial performance lead.

Clock speeds also differ, though the R7 250 lacks a listed base or boost clock. The GTX 680M runs at a 719 MHz base clock with a 758 MHz boost clock. The R7 250’s memory clock is 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective), while the GTX 680M’s memory clock is also 900 MHz but at 3.6 Gbps effective—twice the effective data rate, thanks to its GDDR5 memory versus the R7 250’s DDR3.

Specification Differences

The most striking differences are in memory and compute throughput. The R7 250 comes with 1,024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 680M offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 115.2 GB/s—exactly four times the bandwidth. This memory advantage is critical for high-resolution textures and large datasets.

Compute rates follow the same pattern. The R7 250 achieves a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 947.2 GFLOPS. The GTX 680M nearly doubles the pixel rate at 21.22 GPixel/s, nearly triples the texture rate at 84.90 GTexel/s, and more than doubles FP32 performance at 2.038 TFLOPS. These are not incremental gains; they represent a full performance tier above.

The form factor and interface also differ completely. The R7 250 is a single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, 168 mm length, and display outputs including one DVI, one HDMI 1.4a, and one DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 680M is an MXM Module using the MXM-B (3.0) interface, with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent"—meaning it relies entirely on the laptop’s own outputs. The R7 250 has no power connectors and a 55 W TDP, while the GTX 680M also has no power connectors (drawing power through the MXM slot) but has a 100 W TDP.

API support shows minor differences. Both support DirectX 12, but the R7 250 supports version 11_1 while the GTX 680M supports 11_0. Both have OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan support, but the R7 250’s Vulkan version is 1.2.170, while the GTX 680M’s is 1.2.175. Release dates differ by over a year: the R7 250 launched on October 7, 2013, while the GTX 680M launched on June 3, 2012.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M is significantly faster. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 9,230 is 18.1% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 250’s 7,557. In FP32 compute, the GTX 680M delivers 2.038 TFLOPS versus the R7 250’s 947.2 GFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The GTX 680M has a substantial advantage. It offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 250 has 1,024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, with just 28.80 GB/s bandwidth—exactly one-quarter of the GTX 680M’s throughput.

Q: Why is the R7 250’s percentile rank higher than the GTX 680M’s despite losing the head-to-head?

A: The R7 250 sits at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 680M is at the 39th. This is because the GTX 680M’s average benchmark score (7,023) is dragged down by its low Geekbench Metal score of 4,815, while its OpenCL score (9,230) is excellent. The R7 250’s single OpenCL score of 7,557 is more representative of its overall performance.

Q: Can the GTX 680M be installed in a desktop computer?

A: No. The GTX 680M is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface, designed exclusively for laptop systems. Its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent." The R7 250, by contrast, is a single-slot desktop card using PCIe 3.0 x16 with standard DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort outputs.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The R7 250’s Cape Verde chip contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the GTX 680M’s GK104 chip packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. Both use a 28 nm TSMC process.

Q: Which GPU requires less power?

A: The R7 250 has a 55 W TDP with a suggested 250 W PSU, while the GTX 680M has a 100 W TDP. The R7 250’s lower power draw and lack of power connectors make it far more suitable for low-power or compact desktop builds.