AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data positions the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 as the stronger performer in the single head-to-head test available. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 750 scores 9,315 against the Radeon R7 250's 7,557, a decisive 18.9% advantage. The R7 250 does not win any head-to-head tests in this dataset.

However, the aggregate picture is more nuanced. The R7 250's average benchmark score of 7,557 places it at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 750's average of 7,222 sits at the 40th percentile. Despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test, the R7 250 actually has a higher average score across all its benchmarks — a reflection of the GTX 750's broader test suite, which includes Metal and Vulkan results that drag its average down. The GTX 750's OpenCL score (9,315) is its best; its Vulkan score is 8,078 and its Metal score is 4,274.

For buyers prioritizing raw OpenCL compute, the GTX 750 is the clear choice. For those looking at overall benchmark consistency, the R7 250's single-score profile is simpler and slightly higher in the aggregate. The GTX 750 also launched at 119 USD MSRP, a figure worth noting for historical context. Both cards are end-of-life products, so the decision rests on which workload matters most: the GTX 750 leads in the only direct comparison, while the R7 250's percentile ranking is marginally better.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations with distinct design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, belonging to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 uses the GM107 chip based on Maxwell architecture, part of the GeForce 700 generation.

Both are fabricated on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the die sizes and transistor counts differ meaningfully. The GTX 750 packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the R7 250 has 1,500 million transistors on a smaller 123 mm² die. This gives the GTX 750 a higher transistor density of 12.6M per mm², compared to the R7 250's 12.2M per mm².

The memory subsystems diverge significantly. The R7 250 uses DDR3 memory at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective) with a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 750 uses GDDR5 memory at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on the same 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s — nearly three times the bandwidth. This is the single largest architectural gap between the two cards, and it directly explains the GTX 750's OpenCL advantage in memory-bound workloads.

Both cards have identical core counts: 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 750's clocks are specified with a base of 1,020 MHz and a boost of 1,085 MHz, while the R7 250 does not list base or boost clocks in the data. The GTX 750's higher clock rates translate into superior fill rates: 17.36 GPixel/s pixel rate and 34.72 GTexel/s texture rate, versus the R7 250's 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is likewise higher on the GTX 750 at 1,111.0 GFLOPS, compared to 947.2 GFLOPS for the R7 250.

API support shows notable differences. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 750 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 — the newer Vulkan version is a point in NVIDIA's favor for modern titles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the dataset is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive win for the GTX 750. NVIDIA scores 9,315 while AMD scores 7,557, a delta of 18.9% in NVIDIA's favor. This margin is substantial and reflects the GTX 750's architectural strengths: higher clocks, greater memory bandwidth, and more efficient Maxwell execution.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the significance of this gap. The R7 250's closest competitors include the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, just 0.1% behind) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580, 0.3% ahead) — both within a rounding error of the R7 250's score. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,472, which is 1.1% below the R7 250. This means the R7 250 is competitive with entry-level GPUs from multiple generations, but the GTX 750 sits clearly above that cluster.

On the GTX 750's side, its nearest rivals are all within 0.9% of its average score of 7,222. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203) is 0.3% behind, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE (7,171) is 0.7% behind, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7,170) is also 0.7% behind. Interestingly, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (7,157) is listed as a rival at 0.9% behind — a much higher-tier card in name, but its average score in this dataset is actually lower than the GTX 750's, likely due to different benchmark mixes.

The GTX 750's additional benchmark results show it excels beyond OpenCL. Its Vulkan score of 8,078 is strong, and its Metal score of 4,274 is notably lower — suggesting the card is less efficient in Apple's API. The R7 250 has no Metal or Vulkan scores listed, only the single OpenCL result, so cross-API comparisons are limited to the GTX 750's own profile.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification except core counts and basic board characteristics:

• Chip: Cape Verde (AMD) vs GM107 (NVIDIA)
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs Maxwell
• Generation: Volcanic Islands (R7 200) vs GeForce 700
• Transistors: 1,500 million vs 1,870 million
• Die Size: 123 mm² vs 148 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.2M / mm² vs 12.6M / mm²
• Base Clock: Not listed vs 1,020 MHz
• Boost Clock: Not listed vs 1,085 MHz
• Memory Clock: 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective) vs 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Type: DDR3 vs GDDR5
• Memory Bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s
• Pixel Rate: 14.80 GPixel/s vs 17.36 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 29.60 GTexel/s vs 34.72 GTexel/s
• FP32: 947.2 GFLOPS vs 1,111.0 GFLOPS
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_1) vs 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.170 vs 1.4
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 vs 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a
• Card Length: 168 mm (6.6 inches) vs 145 mm (5.7 inches)
• Release Date: 2013-10-07 vs 2014-02-17
• Predecessor: Sea Islands vs GeForce 600
• Successor: Pirate Islands vs GeForce 900
• Launch MSRP: Not listed vs 119 USD

Identical specifications include: 28 nm process, TSMC foundry, 1024 MB memory, 128-bit bus, 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 55 W TDP, single-slot width, no power connectors, 250 W suggested PSU, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, OpenGL 4.6, and end-of-life production status.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9,315 against the AMD Radeon R7 250's 7,557, a 18.9% margin.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The R7 250 has a higher average score of 7,557 compared to the GTX 750's 7,222, even though the GTX 750 wins the head-to-head test. The GTX 750's average is pulled down by its Metal score of 4,274.

Q: What is the biggest architectural difference between the two cards?

A: Memory bandwidth. The GTX 750 uses GDDR5 with 80.19 GB/s, while the R7 250 uses DDR3 with 28.80 GB/s — the GTX 750 has nearly three times the bandwidth on the same 128-bit bus.

Q: Do the cards have the same core configuration?

A: Yes, both have 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. However, the GTX 750 has higher clock rates (1,020 MHz base, 1,085 MHz boost) whereas the R7 250 does not list base or boost clocks.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The GTX 750 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 250 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) while the GTX 750 supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: How does each card compare to its closest rivals?

A: The R7 250 is within 1.5% of all four listed rivals, with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 just 0.3% ahead. The GTX 750's rivals are all within 0.9%, with the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile just 0.3% behind.