RADEON 9250 vs Radeon IGP 320M
RADEON 9250
Popular choices:
Radeon IGP 320M
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 IGP 320M is on rank 412, so the Radeon IGP 320M 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 IGP 320M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon IGP 320M uses modern memory architecture. The Radeon IGP 320M 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 IGP 320M 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 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm) |
| 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
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Radeon IGP 320M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
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 IGP 320M
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 IGP 320M
The Radeon IGP 320M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 13 2019. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1250 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 85W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the RADEON 9250 scores 3 versus the Radeon IGP 320M's 4 — the Radeon IGP 320M leads by 33.3%. The RADEON 9250 is built on GCN 3.0 while the Radeon IGP 320M uses RDNA 1.0, both on 28 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 2,048 (RADEON 9250) vs 1,280 (Radeon IGP 320M). Raw compute: 4.096 TFLOPS (RADEON 9250) vs 3.2 TFLOPS (Radeon IGP 320M). Boost clocks: 1000 MHz vs 1250 MHz.
| Feature | RADEON 9250 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3 | 4+33% |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | RDNA 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+60% | 1280 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.096 TFLOPS+28% | 3.2 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1000 MHz | 1250 MHz+25% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128+60% | 80 |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RADEON 9250 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| 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 RADEON 9250 comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon IGP 320M has 512 MB. The Radeon IGP 320M offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (RADEON 9250) vs 2 MB (Radeon IGP 320M) — the Radeon IGP 320M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | RADEON 9250 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.5 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Power & Dimensions
The RADEON 9250 draws 95W versus the Radeon IGP 320M's 85W — a 11.1% difference. The Radeon IGP 320M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (RADEON 9250) vs 350W (Radeon IGP 320M). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | RADEON 9250 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 95W | 85W-11% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | — | 0 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon IGP 320M is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | RADEON 9250 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $79 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $25 | — |
| Codename | Amethyst | Navi 14 |
| Release | September 29 2015 | November 13 2019 |
| Ranking | #420 | #403 |
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 IGP 320M
