GeForce MX250 vs GeForce RTX 2060
GeForce MX250
Popular choices:
GeForce RTX 2060
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
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce RTX 2060 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 494.3% 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 RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-494.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+494.3%) |
| Longevity | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (6 GB) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce RTX 2060 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $120 versus $150 for the GeForce MX250, it costs 20% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 642.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce MX250 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+642.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) | ✅More affordable ($120) |
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 RTX 2060
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 RTX 2060
The GeForce RTX 2060 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 7 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1365 MHz to 1680 MHz. It has 1920 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 160W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 30 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 14,114 points. Launch price was $349.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce MX250 scores 2,375 versus the GeForce RTX 2060's 14,114 — the GeForce RTX 2060 leads by 494.3%. The GeForce MX250 is built on Pascal while the GeForce RTX 2060 uses Turing, both on 14 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce MX250) vs 1,920 (GeForce RTX 2060). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce MX250) vs 6.451 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 2060). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1680 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,375 | 14,114+494% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 1920+400% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 6.451 TFLOPS+709% |
| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 1680 MHz+62% |
| ROPs | 16 | 48+200% |
| TMUs | 24 | 120+400% |
| L1 Cache | 0.14 MB | 1.9 MB+1257% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 3 MB+500% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | DLSS 2.0 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 / AFMF (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce MX250 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce RTX 2060 has 6 GB. The GeForce RTX 2060 offers 200% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 48 GB/s (GeForce MX250) vs 336 GB/s (GeForce RTX 2060) — a 600% advantage for the GeForce RTX 2060. Bus width: 64-bit vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce MX250) vs 3 MB (GeForce RTX 2060) — the GeForce RTX 2060 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 6 GB+200% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 336 GB/s+600% |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 192-bit+200% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 3 MB+500% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce MX250) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2) (GeForce RTX 2060). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce MX250) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce RTX 2060). Decoder: NVDEC 3rd Gen vs NVDEC (Turing). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9 (GeForce MX250) vs H.264,H.265,VP9,VP8,MPEG-2,VC-1 (GeForce RTX 2060).
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 3rd Gen | NVDEC (Turing) |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9 | H.264,H.265,VP9,VP8,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce MX250 draws 10W versus the GeForce RTX 2060's 160W — a 176.5% difference. The GeForce MX250 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce MX250) vs 500W (GeForce RTX 2060). Power connectors: Mobile vs 8-pin. Card length: 0mm vs 229mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 72.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-94% | 160W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-30% | 500W |
| Power Connector | Mobile | 8-pin |
| Length | 0mm | 229mm |
| Height | 0mm | 113mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | 72-4% |
| Perf/Watt | 237.5+169% | 88.2 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce MX250 launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the GeForce RTX 2060 launched at $349 and now averages $120. The GeForce RTX 2060 costs 20% less ($30 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 15.8 (GeForce MX250) vs 117.6 (GeForce RTX 2060) — the GeForce RTX 2060 offers 644.3% better value.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150-57% | $349 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $120-20% |
| Performance per Dollar | 15.8 | 117.6+644% |
| Codename | GP108B | TU106 |
| Release | February 20 2019 | January 7 2019 |
| Ranking | #643 | #168 |
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 RTX 2060
