
MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 vs RADEON 9250

MOBILITY/RADEON 9000
Popular choices:

RADEON 9250
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar RADEON 9250
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 33.3% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (512 MB vs 256 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the RADEON 9250.
| Insight | MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 | RADEON 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The RADEON 9250 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the RADEON 9250 holds the technical lead. Priced at $25 (vs $49), it costs 49% less, resulting in a 47% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 | RADEON 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+47%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) | ✅More affordable ($25) |
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 MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 and RADEON 9250

MOBILITY/RADEON 9000
The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 7 2010. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 700 MHz. It has 800 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points.

RADEON 9250
The RADEON 9250 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in September 29 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 735 MHz to 1000 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 95W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 scores 4 versus the RADEON 9250's 3 — the MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 leads by 33.3%. The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 is built on TeraScale 2 while the RADEON 9250 uses GCN 3.0, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 800 (MOBILITY/RADEON 9000) vs 2,048 (RADEON 9250). Raw compute: 1.12 TFLOPS (MOBILITY/RADEON 9000) vs 4.096 TFLOPS (RADEON 9250).
| Feature | MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 | RADEON 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4+33% | 3 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 | GCN 3.0 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 800 | 2048+156% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.12 TFLOPS | 4.096 TFLOPS+266% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 40 | 128+220% |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 512 KB+540% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 | RADEON 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the RADEON 9250 has 256 MB. The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (MOBILITY/RADEON 9000) vs 512 KB (RADEON 9250) — the RADEON 9250 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 | RADEON 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+100% | 0.25 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Power & Dimensions
The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 draws 10W versus the RADEON 9250's 95W — a 161.9% difference. The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 0W (MOBILITY/RADEON 9000) vs 350W (RADEON 9250). Power connectors: None vs Legacy.
| Feature | MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 | RADEON 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-89% | 95W |
| Recommended PSU | 0W-100% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | Legacy |
| Length | 0mm | — |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 70 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.4 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the RADEON 9250 launched at $79 and now averages $25. The RADEON 9250 costs 49% less ($24 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (MOBILITY/RADEON 9000) vs 0.1 (RADEON 9250) — the RADEON 9250 offers 0% better value. The RADEON 9250 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2010).
| Feature | MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 | RADEON 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $79 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $25-49% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Codename | Broadway | Amethyst |
| Release | January 7 2010 | September 29 2015 |
| Ranking | #846 | #420 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















