Mobility Radeon X2500 vs Radeon HD 2350

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. The Mobility Radeon X2500 is positioned at rank 668 and the Radeon HD 2350 is on rank 322, so the Radeon HD 2350 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Mobility Radeon X2500

#657

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

6620%

#659

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

6001%

#660

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

5985%

#664

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

5443%

#665

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

5405%

#667

GeForce 9700M GT

MSRP: $200|Avg: $40

100%

#668

Mobility Radeon X2500

MSRP: $50|Avg: $15

100%

#669

GeForce 9300 SE

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

100%

#670

GeForce 9800M GTX

MSRP: $300|Avg: $30

92%

#671

Radeon HD 7520G + 8750M Dual

MSRP: $250|Avg: $57

92%

#672

Mobility Radeon HD 4300 Serisi

MSRP: $49|Avg: $10

91%

#673

GeForce 505

MSRP: $99|Avg: $15

88%

#674

GeForce 9200M GE

MSRP: $100|Avg: $15

88%

#675

Mobility Radeon. HD 5470

MSRP: $150|Avg: $25

87%

#676

Radeon HD 2600 XT

MSRP: $199|Avg: $40

87%

#677

GeForce 7500 LE

MSRP: $60|Avg: $15

87%

#678

GeForce 9650M GT

MSRP: $100|Avg: $25

84%

#679

GeForce 9650M GS

MSRP: $199|Avg: $20

83%

#680

GeForce 8400 SE

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

83%

#681

GeForce 8400M GT

MSRP: $50|Avg: $30

82%

#682

GeForce 9200M GS

MSRP: $100|Avg: $40

79%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Radeon HD 2350

#1

GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

MSRP: $399|Avg: $280

4710%

#2

GeForce RTX 5060

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

4525%

#3

Radeon RX 5600 XT

MSRP: $279|Avg: $180

4473%

#4

Radeon RX 9060

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

4465%

#5

GeForce RTX 5050

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

4456%

#6

GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

MSRP: $249|Avg: $150

4431%

#7

Arc A580

MSRP: $179|Avg: $179

4375%

#8

Radeon RX 9060 XT

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

4358%

#9

Radeon RX 9060 XT 8GB

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

4318%

#10

Radeon RX 7600

MSRP: $269|Avg: $250

4306%

#11

Radeon RX 6600

MSRP: $329|Avg: $180

4255%

#12

GeForce RTX 4060

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

4245%

#13

Arc B570

MSRP: $219|Avg: $219

4169%

#14

Arc B580

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

4166%

#307

Radeon R5 430 OEM

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $13

5195%

#322

Radeon HD 2350

MSRP: $50|Avg: $48

100%

#323

Radeon HD 2400

MSRP: $79|Avg: $10

99%

#324

Radeon HD 2400 XT

MSRP: $79|Avg: $10

98%

#326

GeForce 7300 GT

MSRP: $89|Avg: $20

90%

#327

Radeon HD 3870 X2

MSRP: $449|Avg: $40

85%

#329

GeForce 7950 GT

MSRP: $299|Avg: $50

75%

#330

RADEON X550XT

MSRP: $50|Avg: $40

73%

#334

Radeon X1650 Pro

MSRP: $100|Avg: $15

55%

#336

RADEON X550

MSRP: $60|Avg: $10

55%

#337

Radeon HD 8350

MSRP: $200|Avg: $39

53%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Mobility Radeon X2500 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 6.5% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon HD 2350.

Insight	Mobility Radeon X2500	Radeon HD 2350
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+6.5%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-6.5%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	—	—

💎 Value Proposition

The Mobility Radeon X2500 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Mobility Radeon X2500 holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $48), it costs 69% less, resulting in a 240.8% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	Mobility Radeon X2500	Radeon HD 2350
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+240.8%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($15)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($48)

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.

Mobility Radeon X2500 Benchmark Check

Radeon HD 2350 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Mobility Radeon X2500 and Radeon HD 2350

Mobility Radeon X2500

The Mobility Radeon X2500 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 50W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 82 points.

Radeon HD 2350

The Radeon HD 2350 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 31 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1250 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 200W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 77 points. Launch price was $449.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the Mobility Radeon X2500 scores 82 versus the Radeon HD 2350's 77 — the Mobility Radeon X2500 leads by 6.5%. The Mobility Radeon X2500 is built on TeraScale 2 while the Radeon HD 2350 uses GCN 1.0, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 800 (Mobility Radeon X2500) vs 1,792 (Radeon HD 2350). Raw compute: 1.12 TFLOPS (Mobility Radeon X2500) vs 2.867 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 2350).

Feature	Mobility Radeon X2500	Radeon HD 2350
G3D Mark Score	82+6%	77
Architecture	TeraScale 2	GCN 1.0
Process Node	40 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	800	1792+124%
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.12 TFLOPS	2.867 TFLOPS+156%
ROPs	16	32+100%
TMUs	40	112+180%
L1 Cache	80 KB	448 KB+460%
L2 Cache	256 KB	768 KB+200%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Mobility Radeon X2500	Radeon HD 2350
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)

Both cards feature 256 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (Mobility Radeon X2500) vs 768 KB (Radeon HD 2350) — the Radeon HD 2350 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Mobility Radeon X2500	Radeon HD 2350
VRAM Capacity	0.25 GB	0.25 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	Unknown	Unknown
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	256 KB	768 KB+200%

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Mobility Radeon X2500 draws 50W versus the Radeon HD 2350's 200W — a 120% difference. The Mobility Radeon X2500 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Mobility Radeon X2500) vs 350W (Radeon HD 2350). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin.

Feature	Mobility Radeon X2500	Radeon HD 2350
TDP	50W-75%	200W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	1x 6-pin
Temp (Load)	75°C	—
Perf/Watt	1.6+300%	0.4

💰

Value Analysis

The Mobility Radeon X2500 launched at $50 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the Radeon HD 2350 launched at $50 and now averages $48. The Mobility Radeon X2500 costs 68.8% less ($33 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 5.5 (Mobility Radeon X2500) vs 1.6 (Radeon HD 2350) — the Mobility Radeon X2500 offers 243.8% better value. The Radeon HD 2350 is the newer GPU (2012 vs 2010).