GeForce MX250 vs GeForce RTX 4060
GeForce MX250
Popular choices:
GeForce RTX 4060
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 GeForce RTX 4060
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce RTX 4060 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 723.1% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (8 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 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-723.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+723.1%) |
| Longevity | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) | 🏆Elite Architecture (Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) / 5nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce RTX 4060 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $299 (vs $150), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 312.9% better value per dollar than the GeForce MX250.
| Insight | GeForce MX250 | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+312.9%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($150) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($299) |
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 4060
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 4060
The GeForce RTX 4060 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 18 2023. It features the Ada Lovelace architecture. The core clock ranges from 1830 MHz to 2460 MHz. It has 3072 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 115W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 24 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 19,548 points. Launch price was $299.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce MX250 scores 2,375 versus the GeForce RTX 4060's 19,548 — the GeForce RTX 4060 leads by 723.1%. The GeForce MX250 is built on Pascal while the GeForce RTX 4060 uses Ada Lovelace, both on 14 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce MX250) vs 3,072 (GeForce RTX 4060). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce MX250) vs 15.11 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 4060). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 2460 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,375 | 19,548+723% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Ada Lovelace |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 3072+700% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 15.11 TFLOPS+1795% |
| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 2460 MHz+137% |
| ROPs | 16 | 48+200% |
| TMUs | 24 | 96+300% |
| L1 Cache | 0.14 MB | 3 MB+2043% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 24 MB+4700% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the GeForce RTX 4060 is support for DLSS 3 Frame Gen. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The GeForce MX250 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | DLSS 3.5 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | DLSS 3.0 (Native) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | Yes (DLSS 3.5) |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce MX250 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce RTX 4060 has 8 GB. The GeForce RTX 4060 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 48 GB/s (GeForce MX250) vs 272 GB/s (GeForce RTX 4060) — a 466.7% advantage for the GeForce RTX 4060. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce MX250) vs 24 MB (GeForce RTX 4060) — the GeForce RTX 4060 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 8 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 272 GB/s+467% |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 24 MB+4700% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce MX250) vs 12 Ultimate (GeForce RTX 4060). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate |
| 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 8th gen (GeForce RTX 4060). Decoder: NVDEC 3rd Gen vs NVDEC 5th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9 (GeForce MX250) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,AV1 (GeForce RTX 4060).
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | NVENC 8th gen |
| Decoder | NVDEC 3rd Gen | NVDEC 5th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce MX250 draws 10W versus the GeForce RTX 4060's 115W — a 168% difference. The GeForce MX250 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce MX250) vs 550W (GeForce RTX 4060). Power connectors: Mobile vs 8-pin. Card length: 0mm vs 240mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 73°C.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-91% | 115W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-36% | 550W |
| Power Connector | Mobile | 8-pin |
| Length | 0mm | 240mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | 73°C-3% |
| Perf/Watt | 237.5+40% | 170.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce MX250 launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the GeForce RTX 4060 launched at $299 and now averages $299. The GeForce MX250 costs 49.8% less ($149 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 15.8 (GeForce MX250) vs 65.4 (GeForce RTX 4060) — the GeForce RTX 4060 offers 313.9% better value. The GeForce RTX 4060 is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150-50% | $299 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150-50% | $299 |
| Performance per Dollar | 15.8 | 65.4+314% |
| Codename | GP108B | AD107 |
| Release | February 20 2019 | May 18 2023 |
| Ranking | #643 | #84 |
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 4060
