AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M vs AMD Radeon R7 250

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M and AMD Radeon R7 250 are two end-of-life graphics solutions from different segments: the GTX 880M is a mobile MXM module built on the Kepler architecture, while the R7 250 is a desktop single-slot card based on GCN 1.0. Despite the GTX 880M's larger die, higher transistor count, and substantially more memory bandwidth, benchmark data shows the R7 250 actually wins in the one shared test. This comparison breaks down the architectural differences, specification gaps, and real-world benchmark implications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M has an average benchmark score of 8040, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557. The GTX 880M sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, compared to the R7 250's 41st percentile.

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

A: Memory configuration is the most dramatic gap. The GTX 880M features 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus delivering just 28.80 GB/s — a 5.6x difference in bandwidth.

Q: Which card wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 wins decisively, scoring 7557 versus the GTX 880M's 5622. This represents a -25.6% delta for the NVIDIA card, meaning the R7 250 is roughly 34% faster in this specific workload.

Q: How do the architectures differ in terms of shader resources?

A: The GTX 880M packs 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA card has 3x the shading units and 4x the TMUs, yet still loses the OpenCL test.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 880M has a TDP of 122 W and uses an MXM module slot width with no power connectors, while the R7 250 has a 55 W TDP, is a single-slot card, also has no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU.

Q: Do both cards support modern APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 880M offers Vulkan 1.2.175, while the R7 250 has Vulkan 1.2.170. However, the GTX 880M's DirectX 12 support is at the 11_0 feature level, while the R7 250 supports 12 (11_1).

Architecture Differences

The GTX 880M is built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture using the GK104 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 294 mm² and contains 3,540 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². Kepler was designed for high shading throughput and efficiency, which explains the massive 1536 shading units and 128 texture mapping units. The chip's base clock runs at 954 MHz with a boost to 993 MHz, and memory operates at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The GTX 880M is a mobile part, using an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and an MXM Module slot width, meaning it is intended for laptops and portable workstations.

The R7 250 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with the Cape Verde chip, also on TSMC's 28 nm process. The die is much smaller at 123 mm², housing 1,500 million transistors for a density of 12.2M per mm² — nearly identical to the GTX 880M despite the size difference. GCN 1.0 was AMD's first-generation compute-oriented design, emphasizing parallel execution units over raw clock speed. The R7 250 has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). This is a desktop card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, single-slot cooling, and display outputs including 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

The transistor density figures are strikingly close (12.0M vs 12.2M per mm²), indicating both chips were produced on the same mature 28 nm process with similar design rules. The real architectural divergence is in resource allocation: NVIDIA put far more transistors into shading units and texture hardware, while AMD's GCN design uses its smaller transistor budget more efficiently in compute-focused workloads. The GTX 880M's pixel rate is 31.78 GPixel/s and texture rate is 127.1 GTexel/s, versus the R7 250's 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s respectively.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 250 wins in the only head-to-head benchmark available: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, it scores 7557 against the GTX 880M's 5622, a delta of -25.6% from the NVIDIA card's perspective. This suggests GCN 1.0's architecture is particularly effective at OpenCL compute workloads, despite having far fewer shading units and a much narrower memory bus. The R7 250's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A310 (avg score 7550, deltaPct 0.1) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (avg score 7580, deltaPct -0.3), showing it sits in a tight performance cluster.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M wins in the broader specification comparison and in the Geekbench Metal test, where it scores 10458. While the R7 250 has no Metal benchmark listed, the GTX 880M's average benchmark score of 8040 is 6.4% higher than the R7 250's 7557. The GTX 880M's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (avg score 8039, deltaPct 0), the GTX 650 Ti (avg score 8053, deltaPct -0.2), and the GTX 650 Ti Boost (avg score 8067, deltaPct -0.3) — all within a fraction of a percent, indicating the 880M is right at a performance plateau for its class.

For gaming, the GTX 880M's advantages in memory bandwidth (160.0 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s), texture rate (127.1 GTexel/s vs 29.60 GTexel/s), and pixel rate (31.78 GPixel/s vs 14.80 GPixel/s) would suggest a clear win in graphics-bound scenarios. For compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL, the R7 250's architecture proves more efficient per transistor.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification except process node and foundry. Both use TSMC's 28 nm process, but the GTX 880M's die is 294 mm² versus the R7 250's 123 mm², and transistor counts are 3,540 million versus 1,500 million. Transistor density is nearly identical (12.0M vs 12.2M per mm²).

Clock speeds: the GTX 880M has a base clock of 954 MHz and boost of 993 MHz, while the R7 250 lists no base or boost clock. Memory clocks differ significantly: 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for AMD.

Memory subsystem: the GTX 880M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. This is a 7x difference in capacity and a 5.6x difference in bandwidth.

Compute resources: the GTX 880M has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the R7 250's 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 31.78 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 127.1 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 3.050 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS.

Power and form factor: the GTX 880M has a TDP of 122 W and uses an MXM Module slot width, while the R7 250 has a 55 W TDP, single-slot cooling, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The GTX 880M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the R7 250 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The R7 250 measures 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length; the GTX 880M has no listed dimensions.

API support: both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 880M supports Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0), while the R7 250 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1). The R7 250 also has a higher DirectX feature level.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it produces a surprising result. The AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M scores 5622. The deltaPct is -25.6% for the NVIDIA card, meaning the R7 250 outperforms the GTX 880M by roughly 34% in this workload. This is remarkable given the GTX 880M's 3x shading units, 4x TMUs, and 5.6x memory bandwidth.

The GTX 880M does have a Geekbench Metal score of 10458, which is not available for the R7 250. This Metal result, combined with the OpenCL score, gives the GTX 880M an average benchmark score of 8040. The R7 250's only benchmark is the OpenCL test, so its average score equals 7557.

Looking at competitor positioning, the GTX 880M's 8040 average places it between the Quadro P5000 (8039, deltaPct 0) and the GTX 650 Ti (8053, deltaPct -0.2). The R7 250's 7557 average places it above the Arc A310 (7550, deltaPct 0.1) and below the Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580, deltaPct -0.3). The GTX 880M sits 6.4% higher in average score, but that advantage comes entirely from the Metal test — in the shared OpenCL test, it loses decisively.

The wins tally confirms this split: the R7 250 has 1 win (OpenCL), while the GTX 880M has 0 wins in head-to-head comparisons. This does not include the Metal benchmark, which is exclusive to the NVIDIA card.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon R7 250 is the winner in the only direct comparison available. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 7557 versus the GTX 880M's 5622 is a clear, substantial margin that cannot be dismissed as noise. If your workload is OpenCL-based — which includes many compute, physics, and productivity applications — the R7 250 delivers better performance at less than half the TDP (55 W versus 122 W) and in a smaller single-slot form factor.

However, the picture changes when looking at the full benchmark suite. The GTX 880M's Geekbench Metal score of 10458 is strong, and its average benchmark score of 8040 is higher than the R7 250's 7557. The GTX 880M also holds overwhelming specification advantages: 8 GB GDDR5 versus 1 GB DDR3, 160.0 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, and 3.050 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS FP32 throughput. For graphics-intensive tasks that can leverage these resources, the GTX 880M is the more capable part on paper.

The choice depends on your platform and workload. If you need a desktop card for OpenCL compute and want minimal power draw, the R7 250 is the data-backed pick. If you need a mobile MXM solution with high memory capacity and bandwidth, or if Metal performance matters, the GTX 880M is the only option between these two — and its average score reflects that broader capability. The R7 250 wins the head-to-head benchmark, but the GTX 880M wins the specification war and the overall average score. Neither card is a clear all-around champion; the data simply shows two different design philosophies, with AMD's GCN architecture proving more efficient in compute and NVIDIA's Kepler excelling in raw graphics throughput.