AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M and AMD Radeon R7 250 are both end-of-life mobile and desktop parts respectively, but the benchmark data available shows a clear, if lopsided, contest. The GTX 950M holds a single head-to-head win, but the underlying specifications and architectural differences tell a more complete story of two GPUs designed for different eras and purposes. The data indicates a significant performance gap, with the NVIDIA part leading in compute workloads, but the AMD card offering a distinct set of physical and interface advantages.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M scores 9745, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557. This translates to a 29% lead for the GTX 950M, a substantial margin in raw compute performance. This single data point defines the entire head-to-head comparison, with the GTX 950M taking the sole win in the dataset.

Breaking down that score, the GTX 950M's advantage comes from a higher raw throughput. The data shows its FP32 performance is rated at 1,438.7 GFLOPS compared to the R7 250's 947.2 GFLOPS. This is a 51.9% difference in theoretical floating-point capability, which directly explains the large delta in the OpenCL benchmark. The GTX 950M also holds a lead in texture and pixel rates, with 44.96 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s, and 17.98 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, respectively. These metrics indicate the NVIDIA part is not just faster at compute but also at the fundamental operations of filling the screen and applying textures.

When looking at the broader context, the GTX 950M's average benchmark score of 8135 places it at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (scoring 8129), which it edges out by 0.1%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (scoring 8167), which beats it by a mere 0.4%. This clustering shows that the GTX 950M sits in a very tight performance band, within a single percentage point of much more prominent names. The R7 250, on the other hand, has an average score of 7557, placing it at the 41st percentile. Its nearest rival is the Intel Arc A310, which scores 7550 and trails by just 0.1%, indicating the AMD card is at the very edge of its performance tier. The delta between the two cards' average scores is 7.6%, a significant gap that is even more pronounced in the direct head-to-head OpenCL test.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures that reflect their intended use cases. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M is based on the GM107 chip using the Maxwell architecture, which is part of the GeForce 900M generation. In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 250 utilizes the Cape Verde chip with the older GCN 1.0 architecture, belonging to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. Both are manufactured on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ: NVIDIA packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, while AMD fits 1,500 million into a smaller 123 mm² die. This results in a slightly higher transistor density for the NVIDIA chip at 12.6M / mm² versus 12.2M / mm² for AMD.

The functional unit counts reveal the source of the performance gap. The GTX 950M has 640 shading units and 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), while the R7 250 has 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. Both have 16 raster operation units (ROPs). This gives the NVIDIA card a 25% advantage in both shader and TMU count, which is a direct driver of its higher compute and texture throughput. The memory subsystems are more evenly matched, with both using DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, resulting in identical bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The GTX 950M has a larger frame buffer at 4 GB compared to the R7 250's 1024 MB, which is a critical difference for modern workloads that demand more memory.

Feature support also diverges. The GTX 950M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 250 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support DirectX 12, but with different feature levels: the NVIDIA card is at 12 (11_0) and the AMD card is at 12 (11_1). The AMD card has a slight edge in the DirectX feature level, but the NVIDIA card has a more modern Vulkan implementation. The bus interface is another key differentiator, with the GTX 950M using PCIe 3.0 x8 and the R7 250 using the full PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, giving the AMD card twice the bandwidth for CPU communication.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark and specification data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M wins on raw performance. Its 29% lead in the OpenCL benchmark is the definitive result. It also wins on memory capacity, with 4 GB versus 1 GB, making it the clear choice for tasks that are memory-hungry, such as high-resolution textures or large compute datasets. The GTX 950M's higher FP32, texture, and pixel rates indicate it will handle graphically intensive applications and general-purpose compute workloads with greater ease.

The AMD Radeon R7 250, while losing on raw speed, wins on physical and interface aspects. It is a Single-slot desktop card with a defined length of 168 mm (6.6 inches) and a TDP of just 55 W, compared to the GTX 950M's 75 W. This makes the R7 250 a more power-efficient option for a compact or low-power system. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface provides full bandwidth to the host system, which can be an advantage in CPU-bound scenarios, even if the GPU itself is slower. Furthermore, the R7 250 has a defined set of display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), whereas the GTX 950M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile nature. The R7 250 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, offering a clear guideline for system integration.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M is significantly faster. It scores 9745 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, which is 29% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 250's score of 7557.

Q: How do their memory capacities and bandwidths compare?

A: The GTX 950M has a much larger frame buffer of 4 GB, while the R7 250 has only 1024 MB. Both use DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, giving them identical bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon R7 250 more power-efficient?

A: Yes. The R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W, which is lower than the GTX 950M's 75 W. The AMD card also has a suggested PSU rating of 250 W, while the NVIDIA card is an IGP with no power connector requirements.

Q: What are the key differences in their physical form factors?

A: The R7 250 is a Single-slot desktop card with a length of 168 mm (6.6 inches), while the GTX 950M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) designed for portable devices, with its display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent."

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M has 1,870 million transistors, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 250's 1,500 million. The GTX 950M is also built on a larger die at 148 mm² versus 123 mm².

Q: How do their API supports differ?

A: The GTX 950M supports Vulkan 1.4, which is newer than the R7 250's Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support DirectX 12, but the R7 250 has a slightly higher feature level at 12 (11_1) compared to the GTX 950M's 12 (11_0).

Specification Differences

The following fields are where the two GPUs differ according to the provided data:

• Chip: GM107 (NVIDIA) vs. Cape Verde (AMD)
• Architecture: Maxwell (NVIDIA) vs. GCN 1.0 (AMD)
• Generation: GeForce 900M (NVIDIA) vs. Volcanic Islands (R7 200) (AMD)
• Transistors: 1,870 million (NVIDIA) vs. 1,500 million (AMD)
• Die Size: 148 mm² (NVIDIA) vs. 123 mm² (AMD)
• Transistor Density: 12.6M / mm² (NVIDIA) vs. 12.2M / mm² (AMD)
• Base Clock: 993 MHz (NVIDIA) vs. null (AMD)
• Boost Clock: 1124 MHz (NVIDIA) vs. null (AMD)
• Memory Size: 4 GB (NVIDIA) vs. 1024 MB (AMD)
• Shading Units: 640 (NVIDIA) vs. 512 (AMD)
• TMUs: 40 (NVIDIA) vs. 32 (AMD)
• Pixel Rate: 17.98 GPixel/s (NVIDIA) vs. 14.80 GPixel/s (AMD)
• Texture Rate: 44.96 GTexel/s (NVIDIA) vs. 29.60 GTexel/s (AMD)
• FP32: 1,438.7 GFLOPS (NVIDIA) vs. 947.2 GFLOPS (AMD)
• TDP: 75 W (NVIDIA) vs. 55 W (AMD)
• Slot Width: IGP (NVIDIA) vs. Single-slot (AMD)
• Suggested PSU: null (NVIDIA) vs. 250 W (AMD)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 (NVIDIA) vs. PCIe 3.0 x16 (AMD)
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent (NVIDIA) vs. 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 (AMD)
• Vulkan: 1.4 (NVIDIA) vs. 1.2.170 (AMD)
• DirectX: 12 (11_0) (NVIDIA) vs. 12 (11_1) (AMD)
• Length: null (NVIDIA) vs. 168 mm / 6.6 inches (AMD)
• Release Date: 2015-03-12 (NVIDIA) vs. 2013-10-07 (AMD)
• Predecessor: GeForce 800M (NVIDIA) vs. Sea Islands (AMD)
• Successor: GeForce 10 Mobile (NVIDIA) vs. Pirate Islands (AMD)

The Verdict

The data is clear: for pure performance, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M is the superior product. Its 29% lead in the OpenCL benchmark and higher scores in pixel and texture rates make it the obvious choice for any application that demands graphical or compute power. The larger 4 GB memory pool is also a decisive advantage for modern software. Anyone looking for the faster GPU should pick the GTX 950M without hesitation.

The AMD Radeon R7 250, however, is not without merit. Its lower 55 W TDP, Single-slot form factor, and full PCIe 3.0 x16 interface make it a more practical choice for specific system builds. It is better suited for a compact desktop where power consumption and physical space are the primary constraints. The defined display outputs also offer a level of plug-and-play certainty that the mobile-oriented GTX 950M lacks. For a builder prioritizing efficiency and a straightforward desktop integration over sheer speed, the R7 250 is the more appropriate, albeit slower, option. The choice comes down to a simple trade-off: the GTX 950M for maximum performance, the R7 250 for a more power-efficient and physically convenient desktop package.