
GeForce MX250 vs GRID M10-1Q

GeForce MX250
Popular choices:

GRID M10-1Q
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 GRID M10-1Q lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GRID M10-1Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.4% 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 | GeForce MX250 | GRID M10-1Q |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.4%) |
| Longevity | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce MX250 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $150 versus $500 for the GRID M10-1Q, it costs 70% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 231.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce MX250 | GRID M10-1Q |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+231.9%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($150) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) |
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 GRID M10-1Q

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.

GRID M10-1Q
The GRID M10-1Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 30 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 557 MHz to 1178 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,385 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce MX250 scores 2,375 and the GRID M10-1Q reaches 2,385 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce MX250 is built on Pascal while the GRID M10-1Q uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 14 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce MX250) vs 2,048 (GRID M10-1Q). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce MX250) vs 4.825 TFLOPS (GRID M10-1Q). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1178 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GRID M10-1Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,375 | 2,385 |
| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 2048+433% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 4.825 TFLOPS+505% |
| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 1178 MHz+13% |
| ROPs | 16 | 64+300% |
| TMUs | 24 | 128+433% |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | 768 KB+433% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GRID M10-1Q |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 0.5 MB (GeForce MX250) vs 2 MB (GRID M10-1Q) — the GRID M10-1Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GRID M10-1Q |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce MX250) vs 12_1 (GRID M10-1Q). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GRID M10-1Q |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12_1 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 0 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce MX250 draws 10W versus the GRID M10-1Q's 225W — a 183% difference. The GeForce MX250 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce MX250) vs 350W (GRID M10-1Q). Power connectors: Mobile vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 267mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GRID M10-1Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-96% | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Mobile | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 267mm |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 237.5+2141% | 10.6 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce MX250 launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the GRID M10-1Q launched at $0 and now averages $500. The GeForce MX250 costs 70% less ($350 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 15.8 (GeForce MX250) vs 4.8 (GRID M10-1Q) — the GeForce MX250 offers 229.2% better value. The GeForce MX250 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | GRID M10-1Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150 | $0-100% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150-70% | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 15.8+229% | 4.8 |
| Codename | GP108B | GM204 |
| Release | February 20 2019 | August 30 2015 |
| Ranking | #643 | #525 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












