RADEON 9250 vs GeForce2 MX/MX 400
RADEON 9250
Popular choices:
GeForce2 MX/MX 400
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. The RADEON 9250 is positioned at rank 748 and the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is on rank 750, so the RADEON 9250 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar RADEON 9250
Performance Per Dollar GeForce2 MX/MX 400
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The RADEON 9250 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 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 | RADEON 9250 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $15 versus $25 for the RADEON 9250, it costs 40% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 122.2% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | RADEON 9250 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+122.2%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($25) | ✅More affordable ($15) |
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 RADEON 9250 and GeForce2 MX/MX 400
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.
GeForce2 MX/MX 400
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 1 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1395 MHz to 1575 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 25W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the RADEON 9250 scores 3 versus the GeForce2 MX/MX 400's 4 — the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 leads by 33.3%. The RADEON 9250 is built on GCN 3.0 while the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,048 (RADEON 9250) vs 896 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). Raw compute: 4.096 TFLOPS (RADEON 9250) vs 3.226 TFLOPS (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). Boost clocks: 1000 MHz vs 1575 MHz.
| Feature | RADEON 9250 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3 | 4+33% |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+129% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.096 TFLOPS+27% | 3.226 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1000 MHz | 1575 MHz+57% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128+100% | 64 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RADEON 9250 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The RADEON 9250 comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 has 512 MB. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | RADEON 9250 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.5 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The RADEON 9250 draws 95W versus the GeForce2 MX/MX 400's 25W — a 116.7% difference. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (RADEON 9250) vs 350W (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | RADEON 9250 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 95W | 25W-74% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Height | — | 100mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 55°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.2 |
Value Analysis
The RADEON 9250 launched at $79 MSRP and currently averages $25, while the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 launched at $129 and now averages $15. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 costs 40% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (RADEON 9250) vs 0.3 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) — the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers 200% better value. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2015).
| Feature | RADEON 9250 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $79-39% | $129 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $25 | $15-40% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.1 | 0.3+200% |
| Codename | Amethyst | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 |
| Release | September 29 2015 | August 1 2020 |
| Ranking | #420 | #523 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on RADEON 9250 and GeForce2 MX/MX 400
