GeForce MX250 vs GeForce GTX 1060
GeForce MX250
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1060
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. The GeForce MX250 is positioned at rank #291 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce MX250
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce MX250 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce MX250 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 1060 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1060 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 323.7% higher G3D Mark score and 200% more VRAM (6 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce MX250.
| Insight | GeForce MX250 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-323.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+323.7%) |
| Longevity | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+200%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1060 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $60 versus $150 for the GeForce MX250, it costs 60% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 959.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce MX250 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+959.4%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) | ✅More affordable ($60) |
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 GeForce MX250 and GeForce GTX 1060
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.
GeForce GTX 1060
The GeForce GTX 1060 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 27 2016. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1607 MHz to 1733 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 180W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,064 points. Launch price was $599.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce MX250 scores 2,375 versus the GeForce GTX 1060's 10,064 — the GeForce GTX 1060 leads by 323.7%. The GeForce MX250 is built on Pascal while the GeForce GTX 1060 uses Pascal, both on 14 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce MX250) vs 2,560 (GeForce GTX 1060). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce MX250) vs 8.873 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1060). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1733 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,375 | 10,064+324% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Pascal |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 2560+567% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 8.873 TFLOPS+1013% |
| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 1733 MHz+67% |
| ROPs | 16 | 64+300% |
| TMUs | 24 | 160+567% |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | 960 KB+567% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce MX250 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1060 has 6 GB. The GeForce GTX 1060 offers 200% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 48 GB/s (GeForce MX250) vs 192 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1060) — a 300% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1060. Bus width: 64-bit vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce MX250) vs 2 MB (GeForce GTX 1060) — the GeForce GTX 1060 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 6 GB+200% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 192 GB/s+300% |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 192-bit+200% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce MX250) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1060). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6+2% | 4.5 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce MX250) vs NVENC (Pascal) (GeForce GTX 1060). Decoder: NVDEC 3rd Gen vs NVDEC (Pascal). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9 (GeForce MX250) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX 1060).
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | NVENC (Pascal) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 3rd Gen | NVDEC (Pascal) |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9 | H.264,H.265/HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce MX250 draws 10W versus the GeForce GTX 1060's 180W — a 178.9% difference. The GeForce MX250 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce MX250) vs 400W (GeForce GTX 1060). Power connectors: Mobile vs 6-pin. Card length: 0mm vs 173mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-94% | 180W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-13% | 400W |
| Power Connector | Mobile | 6-pin |
| Length | 0mm | 173mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 237.5+325% | 55.9 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce MX250 launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the GeForce GTX 1060 launched at $249 and now averages $60. The GeForce GTX 1060 costs 60% less ($90 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 15.8 (GeForce MX250) vs 167.7 (GeForce GTX 1060) — the GeForce GTX 1060 offers 961.4% better value. The GeForce MX250 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2016).
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce GTX 1060 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150-40% | $249 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $60-60% |
| Performance per Dollar | 15.8 | 167.7+961% |
| Codename | GP108B | GP104 |
| Release | February 20 2019 | May 27 2016 |
| Ranking | #643 | #137 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce MX250 and GeForce GTX 1060
