AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data contains a single directly comparable workload between these two GPUs, and the result is decisively one-sided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 scores 29,982 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 manages 7,557 points. That translates to a delta of -74.8% for the R7 250, meaning the GTX 970 is roughly four times faster in raw compute throughput. This is not a close contest; it is a generational and architectural chasm expressed in a single number.

The R7 250’s score of 7,557 places it at the 41st percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in that percentile band are the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, a 0.1% gap), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580, a -0.3% gap), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472, a 1.1% gap), and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, a 1.5% gap). What this means is that the R7 250 sits in a tightly packed cluster of low-to-mid-range parts, where a 1% swing in score can shuffle the ranking. It is competitive with those specific cards, but it is not competitive with anything above that stratum.

The GTX 970’s average benchmark score across all its tested workloads is 7,157, which is actually lower than its single OpenCL result. That discrepancy is explained by the other benchmarks it runs, which include DirectX 9 through 12, 3DMark Steel Nomad, Geekbench Metal and Vulkan, and Passmark’s G2D and G3D suites. Its percentile rank is 39th, slightly below the R7 250’s 41st percentile, but this is misleading because the GTX 970 is being measured against a much wider and more demanding set of tests. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7,170, a -0.2% gap), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE (7,171, a -0.2% gap), the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203, a -0.6% gap), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7,222, a -0.9% gap). In that company, the GTX 970 is essentially tied with integrated and older discrete parts on average score, but the OpenCL result shows its true compute ceiling.

The head-to-head table records one win for the GTX 970 and zero for the R7 250. The delta of -74.8% is the only comparative percentage provided, and it is the single most important number in this comparison. It is not a marginal victory; it is a wipeout. The R7 250’s pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s are dwarfed by the GTX 970’s 65.97 GPixel/s and 122.5 GTexel/s, respectively, though those figures are not part of the head-to-head table. The OpenCL result alone is sufficient to declare the GTX 970 the clear performance winner.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 wins decisively. It scores 29,982 points compared to the AMD Radeon R7 250’s 7,557 points, a delta of -74.8% for the R7 250.

Q: How does the R7 250 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The R7 250 scores 7,557, which is 0.1% above the Intel Arc A310 (7,550), 0.3% below the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580), 1.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472), and 1.5% above the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447). It is within a 2% band of all four.

Q: What is the GTX 970’s average benchmark score, and how does that compare to its OpenCL score?

A: The GTX 970’s average benchmark score is 7,157, but its OpenCL score is 29,982. The average is pulled down by other workloads like Passmark DirectX 10 (46), DirectX 9 (143), and DirectX 12 (41), which are much lower.

Q: Are these two GPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: They are close in percentile rank but not in performance. The R7 250 is at the 41st percentile, while the GTX 970 is at the 39th percentile. However, the GTX 970’s OpenCL score is nearly four times higher, so the percentile similarity is an artifact of the different benchmark suites each card runs.

Q: What is the GTX 970’s best benchmark result?

A: Its best result is in Geekbench OpenCL at 29,982 points. It also scores 20,005 in Geekbench Vulkan, 13,595 in Geekbench Metal, and 9,638 in Passmark G3D.

Q: What is the R7 250’s only benchmark result?

A: The R7 250 has a single benchmark entry: Geekbench OpenCL at 7,557 points. There are no DirectX, Vulkan, or Metal scores recorded for it.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, but the similarities end there. The AMD Radeon R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip with a GCN 1.0 architecture, belonging to the Volcanic Islands generation (R7 200 series). It packs 1,500 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 uses the GM204 chip with a Maxwell 2.0 architecture, belonging to the GeForce 900 generation. It contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a density of 13.1 million per mm². The GTX 970 has more than three times the transistor count and a die that is more than three times larger.

The compute resources are starkly different. The R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The GTX 970 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 56 ROPs. That is 3.25 times the shaders, 3.25 times the TMUs, and 3.5 times the ROPs. The GTX 970’s FP32 throughput is 3.920 TFLOPS, compared to the R7 250’s 947.2 GFLOPS — a ratio of roughly 4.1 to 1.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The R7 250 uses 1,024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s and a memory clock of 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective). The GTX 970 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 224.4 GB/s and a memory clock of 1,753 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The GTX 970 has eight times the memory capacity and nearly eight times the bandwidth.

Feature support also diverges. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 970 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 970 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version. The GTX 970 also supports HDMI 2.0, while the R7 250 is limited to HDMI 1.4a. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16, but the GTX 970 requires two 6-pin power connectors and a 300 W suggested PSU, whereas the R7 250 has no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 970 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width; the R7 250 is a single-slot card at 168 mm in length.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 is the superior GPU in compute performance, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and feature support. Its OpenCL score of 29,982 is 74.8% higher than the R7 250’s 7,557. It has more shaders, more TMUs, more ROPs, more VRAM, and a wider memory bus. It supports a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version. Anyone choosing between these two for a workload that relies on raw GPU compute should select the GTX 970 without hesitation.

The AMD Radeon R7 250 is not without merit, but its merits are limited to efficiency and simplicity. It draws 55 W versus the GTX 970’s 148 W, requires no power connectors, and fits in a single slot. It is shorter at 168 mm versus 267 mm. Its launch MSRP is not listed in the data, so no cost comparison is possible. Its only benchmark result, 7,557 in OpenCL, places it in a cluster with the Intel Arc A310 and the GTX 1650, which are also low-tier parts. For a system that needs a basic display output with minimal power draw and space, the R7 250 is adequate. For any demanding compute task, it is not.

The percentile rankings tell a subtle story. The R7 250 sits at the 41st percentile, the GTX 970 at the 39th. A casual reader might conclude they are equivalent. The benchmark data contradicts that: the GTX 970’s average score of 7,157 is dragged down by its DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 results (143 and 46, respectively), which are legacy API tests that do not reflect modern workloads. The R7 250 has no such legacy tests, so its single OpenCL score inflates its percentile in comparison. The GTX 970’s real-world compute capability, as shown by OpenCL, is far beyond anything the R7 250 can offer.

The verdict is therefore straightforward. The GTX 970 is the choice for anyone who needs performance. The R7 250 is the choice only for someone who prioritizes low power, low space, and low complexity, and who is willing to accept a 74.8% performance deficit in the one benchmark where both are measured.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 250 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 |

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

| Chip | Cape Verde | GM204 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Generation | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) | GeForce 900 |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 224.4 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective | 1753 MHz / 7 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 512 | 1664 |

| TMUs | 32 | 104 |

| ROPs | 16 | 56 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.80 GPixel/s | 65.97 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 29.60 GTexel/s | 122.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 947.2 GFLOPS | 3.920 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 148 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Length | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | Not listed | 40 mm (1.6 inches) |

| Release Date | 2013-10-07 | 2014-09-18 |

| Predecessor | Sea Islands | GeForce 700 |

| Successor | Pirate Islands | GeForce 10 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 329 USD |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |