AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA T600 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 250 and the NVIDIA T600 occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape, separated by nearly eight years of architectural evolution. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, but the specification sheets reveal a generational chasm that explains the performance gap. The R7 250 is a 2013-era entry-level part from AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, while the T600 is a 2021 professional workstation card built on NVIDIA’s Turing architecture. While both are single-slot, low-power solutions, the benchmark results and hardware disparities make the T600 the clear performance leader, though the R7 250 still has specific use cases where its older design remains relevant.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA T600 wins the only direct comparison available. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the T600 scores 27,875 against the R7 250’s 7,557, a decisive 72.9% margin in favor of the NVIDIA card. This single result dominates the head-to-head tally, giving the T600 one win and the R7 250 zero.

However, the R7 250 is not without its merits when examined in isolation. Its average benchmark score of 7,557 places it in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, which is actually two percentile points higher than the T600’s 39th percentile ranking. This seeming contradiction is explained by the fact that the T600’s average score of 7,035 is dragged down by its inclusion of multiple Passmark tests, including low DirectX 9 (114) and DirectX 10 (32) scores, whereas the R7 250’s average is based solely on its strong OpenCL result. The R7 250’s nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, 0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580, 0.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472, 1.1% behind), indicating it sits in a competitive mid-range for its era. The T600, meanwhile, is bracketed by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7,023, 0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6,975, 0.9% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (7,157, 1.7% ahead), showing a similar clustering around its average score.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast. The R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The T600, by contrast, uses the TU117 chip based on Turing architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a more advanced 12 nm process. This newer node allows the T600 to pack 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, achieving a density of 23.5 million per square millimeter — nearly double that of the R7 250.

The R7 250 belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation, with its predecessor listed as Sea Islands and successor as Pirate Islands. The T600 is part of the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation, succeeding Quadro Volta and succeeded by Workstation Ampere. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the T600 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The T600’s higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version reflect its more recent design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are lopsided. The NVIDIA T600 scores 27,875, which is 20,318 points higher than the R7 250’s 7,557. This translates to a delta of -72.9% from the winner’s perspective, meaning the R7 250 achieves less than a third of the T600’s score. The T600’s performance advantage is consistent with its hardware: it has 640 shading units versus the R7 250’s 512, 40 texture mapping units versus 32, and 32 render output units versus 16. The T600 also boosts to 1,335 MHz, whereas the R7 250 has no listed boost clock, relying on a fixed configuration.

The T600’s memory subsystem compounds its lead. It offers 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the R7 250’s 1 GB of DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s. This 5.5x bandwidth advantage directly impacts compute-heavy workloads. The T600’s FP32 performance is 1.709 TFLOPS, nearly double the R7 250’s 947.2 GFLOPS. Pixel rate is also dramatically higher on the T600 at 42.72 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 53.40 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s. The T600 even supports FP16 at 3.418 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a capability the R7 250 lacks entirely.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification. The R7 250 has a memory clock of 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective), while the T600 runs at 1,250 MHz (10 Gbps effective). Memory size differs: 1,024 MB for the R7 250 versus 4 GB for the T600. Memory type is DDR3 versus GDDR6, and while both use a 128-bit bus, the T600’s faster memory type yields its superior bandwidth.

Power consumption is a notable differentiator, with the R7 250 drawing 55 W and the T600 drawing only 40 W despite its higher performance. The suggested power supply is 250 W for the R7 250 and 200 W for the T600. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors, but the T600’s lower power draw makes it more efficient per watt. The R7 250 has a defined length of 168 mm (6.6 inches), while the T600’s dimensions are not listed.

Display outputs differ significantly: the R7 250 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the T600 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The T600’s four outputs support more multi-monitor configurations, and its newer DisplayPort version enables higher resolutions and refresh rates. The R7 250’s transistor density of 12.2M/mm² is roughly half the T600’s 23.5M/mm², reflecting the process node leap from 28 nm to 12 nm.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA T600 scores 27,875, which is 72.9% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 250’s 7,557.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The T600 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the R7 250 has 1 GB of DDR3. The T600’s memory bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s for the R7 250.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each GPU?

A: The R7 250 contains 1,500 million transistors, whereas the T600 contains 4,700 million transistors, a 3.1x difference.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: Despite being far more powerful, the T600 has a TDP of 40 W, lower than the R7 250’s 55 W. The T600 also suggests a 200 W power supply versus 250 W for the R7 250.

Q: What is the DirectX support difference?

A: The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the T600 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), giving the T600 a higher feature level.

Q: How do the shading unit counts differ?

A: The T600 has 640 shading units, while the R7 250 has 512. The T600 also has 40 TMUs and 32 ROPs, versus 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs on the R7 250.

The Verdict

The NVIDIA T600 is the unequivocal performance winner, with benchmark results showing a 72.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL over the R7 250. Its architectural advantages — Turing versus GCN 1.0, 12 nm versus 28 nm, 4 GB GDDR6 versus 1 GB DDR3 — translate into nearly double the FP32 throughput (1.709 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS) and significantly higher pixel and texture rates. The T600 also achieves this with a lower TDP of 40 W versus 55 W, making it the superior choice for compute workloads, multi-monitor setups (4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort), and modern API support including Vulkan 1.4.

The R7 250, however, is not obsolete in all contexts. Its percentile ranking of 41st versus the T600’s 39th suggests that in the broader GPU ecosystem, the R7 250’s OpenCL performance is proportionally comparable to the T600’s overall average. For users running legacy applications that rely on older DirectX versions, the R7 250’s 28 nm design and simpler feature set may offer compatibility advantages, though the data does not explicitly test this. Its single DisplayPort 1.2 and HDMI 1.4a outputs are sufficient for basic single-display use, and its 168 mm length makes it a compact option.

The verdict is clear: pick the T600 for any modern workload requiring compute performance, higher memory capacity, or multiple display outputs. Pick the R7 250 only if the specific software environment demands a GCN 1.0-era card, or if the 55 W TDP and older bus interface are somehow preferable. The data shows no scenario where the R7 250 outperforms the T600 in raw performance, but its existence in the 41st percentile of all GPUs indicates it remains a functional entry-level option for undemanding tasks.