AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 vs AMD Radeon R7 250 is a matchup between two end-of-life cards from different performance strata, and the benchmark data reflects a wide gulf in capability. The GTX 980 holds a single head-to-head benchmark victory, but the available data for the R7 250 is limited to one compute test, so the comparison relies heavily on that result and the broader average scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a decisive win for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980. The GTX 980 scores 34,676 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 manages 7,557 points. That works out to a delta of 358.9% in favor of the NVIDIA card. In practical terms, the GTX 980 is roughly 4.6 times faster in this compute-oriented workload. This is not a close contest; it is a generational and architectural stomping. The GTX 980’s 4.981 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus the R7 250’s 947.2 GFLOPS explains most of that gap, as does the memory bandwidth difference: 224.4 GB/s on the GTX 980 versus 28.80 GB/s on the R7 250.

Beyond that single head-to-head test, the average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The GTX 980 posts an average score of 8,167 across all its benchmark runs, while the R7 250’s average is 7,557. That is only an 8.1% difference in averages, but that is misleading because the GTX 980 is being measured across many more tests, including DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 workloads, plus 3DMark Steel Nomad and Passmark G2D/G3D. The R7 250 has only the one OpenCL result. Looking at specific sub-tests, the GTX 980 scores 164 in Passmark DirectX 9, 83 in DirectX 11, 53 in DirectX 10, and 46 in DirectX 12. It also hits 11,095 in Passmark G3D and 4,753 in Passmark GPU Compute. The R7 250 has no comparable numbers in those tests, so the head-to-head is effectively a one-round fight.

The nearest rivals for each card put the performance gap into context. The GTX 980’s closest competitors by average score are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8,135, delta 0.4%), the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8,129, delta 0.5%), and the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (8,099, delta 0.8%). Those are mobile or low-end desktop parts, yet they land within 1% of the GTX 980’s average. Meanwhile, the R7 250’s nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, delta 0.1%), AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580, delta -0.3%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472, delta 1.1%). The GTX 1650 is a much newer card, but the R7 250 sits within 1.1% of it in average score, which suggests the R7 250’s single OpenCL result is not entirely out of line for its class. Still, the 358.9% delta in the head-to-head test is the only direct measurement, and it favors the GTX 980 overwhelmingly.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 is the clear performance winner. It doubles the R7 250 in every meaningful specification that drives frame rates: shading units (2048 vs 512), texture mapping units (128 vs 32), render output units (64 vs 16), and memory bandwidth (224.4 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s). The GTX 980 also has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory versus 1 GB of DDR3, which alone would make it more suitable for modern workloads. If you are choosing between these two for any task that involves 3D rendering, compute, or gaming, the GTX 980 is the only rational pick based on the numbers.

The R7 250 is not without merit, but its merits are not in raw performance. It has a 55 W TDP versus the GTX 980’s 165 W, and it requires no power connectors while the GTX 980 needs two 6-pin connectors. The R7 250 is also a single-slot card, while the GTX 980 is dual-slot. For a low-power HTPC or a basic display output card, the R7 250’s 28.80 GB/s bandwidth and 947.2 GFLOPS might be sufficient. But the data does not support any scenario where the R7 250 outperforms the GTX 980. The percentile rankings confirm this: the GTX 980 sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 250 is at the 41st. That is a small gap in percentile terms, but the average scores and the head-to-head delta show the GTX 980 is in a different league for compute-heavy tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 980 wins everywhere that performance matters. In the only direct benchmark, OpenCL, it is 358.9% ahead. In API-specific tests, the GTX 980 shows strong DirectX 9 performance (164 in Passmark) and reasonable DirectX 11 (83), while the R7 250 has no recorded scores in those tests. The GTX 980 also wins on memory: 4 GB GDDR5 at 224.4 GB/s versus 1 GB DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s. For any workload that stresses the GPU—gaming, rendering, compute—the GTX 980 is the winner by a wide margin.

The R7 250 wins only on power efficiency and physical footprint. It draws 55 W versus 165 W, needs no auxiliary power connectors, and fits in a single slot. It is also shorter: 168 mm (6.6 inches) versus 267 mm (10.5 inches) for the GTX 980. If you are building a small form factor system or a low-power media PC, the R7 250’s lower TDP and smaller size are advantages. But those are not performance wins; they are operational wins. The R7 250 also has a higher percentile ranking than its nearest rival the Arc A310 (41st vs 40th, though that rival is not in the data directly), but that is marginal. In terms of raw score, the R7 250’s 7,557 average is within 1.5% of its closest rival, the HD 8850M, which shows it is competitive among low-end parts.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the only head-to-head benchmark available?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 scores 34,676 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7,557, giving the GTX 980 a 358.9% lead.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GTX 980 has an average benchmark score of 8,167 across all tests, while the R7 250 has an average of 7,557. The GTX 980 also has a higher percentile ranking at 43 vs 41.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 980 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 224.4 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 250 uses 1 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s.

Q: Which card requires more power from the PSU?

A: The GTX 980 has a TDP of 165 W and requires a 450 W power supply with two 6-pin connectors. The R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W, needs only a 250 W PSU, and has no power connectors.

Q: Are there any DirectX tests where the R7 250 beats the GTX 980?

A: No. The data shows no benchmark where the R7 250 wins. The GTX 980 has scores in DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, while the R7 250 only has an OpenCL result.

Q: What is the closest rival for each card based on average score?

A: The GTX 980’s closest rival is the GTX 950M with an average score of 8,135 (0.4% delta). The R7 250’s closest rival is the Intel Arc A310 with 7,550 (0.1% delta).

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural families. The GTX 980 uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip based on GCN 1.0. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ dramatically: the GTX 980 has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the R7 250 has 1,500 million on a 123 mm² die. Transistor density is similar (13.1M/mm² vs 12.2M/mm²), but the GTX 980 simply has far more hardware.

The GTX 980’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 250’s GCN 1.0 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. That means the GTX 980 has a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 11_1), which can matter for newer games that use certain rendering features. The GTX 980 also has a boost clock of 1216 MHz and a base of 1127 MHz, while the R7 250 has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 900 MHz. The GTX 980’s memory runs at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), which is much faster than the R7 250’s 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

The compute capabilities reflect the architecture gap. The GTX 980 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs; the R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 77.82 GPixel/s on the GTX 980 versus 14.80 GPixel/s on the R7 250. Texture rate is 155.6 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 4.981 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS. These are not small differences; they are multiples of four or more in every category.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is in memory: the GTX 980 has 4 GB GDDR5, the R7 250 has 1 GB DDR3. The bus width also differs: 256-bit vs 128-bit. That produces a bandwidth gap of 224.4 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s. The GTX 980’s shading units (2048) are four times the R7 250’s (512), and the TMU count (128 vs 32) and ROP count (64 vs 16) follow the same pattern. Thermal and power specs differ as well: TDP is 165 W for the GTX 980 and 55 W for the R7 250. The GTX 980 requires two 6-pin power connectors and a 450 W PSU; the R7 250 has no connectors and only needs a 250 W PSU. Physical size differs too: the GTX 980 is 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 40 mm wide, and it is dual-slot; the R7 250 is 168 mm long and single-slot, with no listed height or width. Display outputs differ: the GTX 980 has one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and three DisplayPort 1.2 outputs; the R7 250 has one DVI, one HDMI 1.4a, and one DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 980 also has a launch MSRP of 549 USD, while the R7 250 has no listed launch MSRP. The release dates are different: the GTX 980 came out on 2014-09-18, and the R7 250 on 2013-10-07. Both are end-of-life products, but the GTX 980’s successor is GeForce 10, while the R7 250’s successor is Pirate Islands. The GTX 980’s predecessor was GeForce 700, and the R7 250’s was Sea Islands.