RADEON 9250 vs RADEON 9200
RADEON 9250
Popular choices:
RADEON 9200
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 RADEON 9200 is on rank 748, so the RADEON 9200 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 RADEON 9200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RADEON 9200 uses modern memory architecture. The RADEON 9200 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 RADEON 9200 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 33.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the RADEON 9250.
| Insight | RADEON 9250 | RADEON 9200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) (28nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The RADEON 9200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $25 (vs $25), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 33.3% better value per dollar than the RADEON 9250.
| Insight | RADEON 9250 | RADEON 9200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+33.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
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 RADEON 9200
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.
RADEON 9200
The RADEON 9200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 13 2019. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 730 MHz to 1024 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the RADEON 9250 scores 3 versus the RADEON 9200's 4 — the RADEON 9200 leads by 33.3%. The RADEON 9250 is built on GCN 3.0 while the RADEON 9200 uses GCN 3.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 2,048 (RADEON 9250) vs 384 (RADEON 9200). Raw compute: 4.096 TFLOPS (RADEON 9250) vs 0.7864 TFLOPS (RADEON 9200). Boost clocks: 1000 MHz vs 1024 MHz.
| Feature | RADEON 9250 | RADEON 9200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3 | 4+33% |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 3.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+433% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.096 TFLOPS+421% | 0.7864 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1000 MHz | 1024 MHz+2% |
| ROPs | 32+300% | 8 |
| TMUs | 128+433% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB+433% | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+300% | 128 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RADEON 9250 | RADEON 9200 |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (RADEON 9250) vs 128 KB (RADEON 9200) — the RADEON 9250 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | RADEON 9250 | RADEON 9200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.25 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+300% | 128 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The RADEON 9250 draws 95W versus the RADEON 9200's 50W — a 62.1% difference. The RADEON 9200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (RADEON 9250) vs 350W (RADEON 9200). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy.
| Feature | RADEON 9250 | RADEON 9200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 95W | 50W-47% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.1 |
Value Analysis
The RADEON 9250 launched at $79 MSRP and currently averages $25, while the RADEON 9200 launched at $99 and now averages $25. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (RADEON 9250) vs 0.2 (RADEON 9200) — the RADEON 9200 offers 100% better value. The RADEON 9200 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | RADEON 9250 | RADEON 9200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $79-20% | $99 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $25 | $25 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.1 | 0.2+100% |
| Codename | Amethyst | Polaris 24 |
| Release | September 29 2015 | May 13 2019 |
| Ranking | #420 | #898 |
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 RADEON 9200
