FirePro 3D V8800 vs GeForce MX250
FirePro 3D V8800
Popular choices:
GeForce MX250
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FirePro 3D V8800 is positioned at rank 312 and the GeForce MX250 is on rank 291, so the GeForce MX250 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FirePro 3D V8800
Performance Per Dollar GeForce MX250
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce MX250 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2010). The GeForce MX250 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FirePro 3D V8800 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro 3D V8800 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.7% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce MX250.
| Insight | FirePro 3D V8800 | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.7%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The FirePro 3D V8800 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $30 versus $150 for the GeForce MX250, it costs 80% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 413.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FirePro 3D V8800 | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+413.3%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($30) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro 3D V8800 and GeForce MX250
FirePro 3D V8800
The FirePro 3D V8800 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 26 2010. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 690 MHz. It has 800 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 74W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,438 points. Launch price was $479.
GeForce MX250
The GeForce MX250 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 20 2019. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 937 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,375 points.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro 3D V8800 scores 2,438 and the GeForce MX250 reaches 2,375 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro 3D V8800 is built on TeraScale 2 while the GeForce MX250 uses Pascal, both on 40 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 800 (FirePro 3D V8800) vs 384 (GeForce MX250). Raw compute: 1.104 TFLOPS (FirePro 3D V8800) vs 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce MX250).
| Feature | FirePro 3D V8800 | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,438+3% | 2,375 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 800+108% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.104 TFLOPS+38% | 0.7972 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40+67% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 144 KB+80% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro 3D V8800 | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (FirePro 3D V8800) vs 512 KB (GeForce MX250) — the GeForce MX250 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | FirePro 3D V8800 | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.2 (FirePro 3D V8800) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce MX250). Vulkan: None vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.4 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | FirePro 3D V8800 | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.2 | 12 (12_1)+7% |
| Vulkan | None | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6+5% |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (FirePro 3D V8800) vs None (GeForce MX250). Decoder: UVD 2.3 vs NVDEC 3rd Gen. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (FirePro 3D V8800) vs H.264,H.265,VP9 (GeForce MX250).
| Feature | FirePro 3D V8800 | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | UVD 2.3 | NVDEC 3rd Gen |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264,H.265,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro 3D V8800 draws 74W versus the GeForce MX250's 10W — a 152.4% difference. The GeForce MX250 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro 3D V8800) vs 350W (GeForce MX250). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Mobile. Card length: 267mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 85 vs 75.
| Feature | FirePro 3D V8800 | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 74W | 10W-86% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Mobile |
| Length | 267mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 85 | 75-12% |
| Perf/Watt | 32.9 | 237.5+622% |
Value Analysis
The FirePro 3D V8800 launched at $1499 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the GeForce MX250 launched at $150 and now averages $150. The FirePro 3D V8800 costs 80% less ($120 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 81.3 (FirePro 3D V8800) vs 15.8 (GeForce MX250) — the FirePro 3D V8800 offers 414.6% better value. The GeForce MX250 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2010).
| Feature | FirePro 3D V8800 | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1499 | $150-90% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-80% | $150 |
| Performance per Dollar | 81.3+415% | 15.8 |
| Codename | Juniper | GP108B |
| Release | April 26 2010 | February 20 2019 |
| Ranking | #780 | #643 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on FirePro 3D V8800 and GeForce MX250
