Radeon HD 6970M
VS
Radeon R7 250X

Radeon HD 6970M vs Radeon R7 250X

AMD

Radeon HD 6970M

2011Core: 680 MHz
VS
AMD

Radeon R7 250X

2014Boost: 1000 MHz

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. The Radeon HD 6970M is positioned at rank #121 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

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

Performance Per Dollar Radeon HD 6970M

#111
Radeon RX 550X (móvel)
MSRP: $35|Avg: $35
287%
#113
260%
#114
259%
#118
GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50
236%
#119
Radeon RX 6300
MSRP: $60|Avg: $40
234%
#121
Radeon HD 6970M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $48
100%
#123
Radeon HD 6970M Crossfire
MSRP: $150|Avg: $150
99%
#125
GeForce GT 550M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $30
99%
#131
GeForce GT 335M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $25
97%
Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Radeon HD 6970M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R7 250X.

InsightRadeon HD 6970MRadeon R7 250X
Performance
Leading raw performance (+0%)
Lower raw frame rates (-0%)
Longevity
🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015))
🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020))
Ecosystem
Supports FSR Upscaling
Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM
❌ Less VRAM capacity
✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency
Normal Efficiency
Normal Efficiency
Case Fit
📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The Radeon R7 250X offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R7 250X holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $48), it costs 38% less, resulting in a 59.9% higher cost efficiency score.

InsightRadeon HD 6970MRadeon R7 250X
Cost Efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Better overall value (+59.9%)
Upfront Cost
⚠️Higher upfront cost ($48)
More affordable ($30)

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 HD 6970M and Radeon R7 250X

AMD

Radeon HD 6970M

The Radeon HD 6970M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 4 2011. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 680 MHz. It has 960 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,270 points.

AMD

Radeon R7 250X

The Radeon R7 250X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in February 13 2014. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 80W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,269 points. Launch price was $99.

Graphics Performance

The Radeon HD 6970M scores 2,270 and the Radeon R7 250X reaches 2,269 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon HD 6970M is built on TeraScale 2 while the Radeon R7 250X uses GCN 1.0, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 960 (Radeon HD 6970M) vs 640 (Radeon R7 250X). Raw compute: 1.306 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 6970M) vs 1.216 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 250X).

FeatureRadeon HD 6970MRadeon R7 250X
G3D Mark Score
2,270
2,269
Architecture
TeraScale 2
GCN 1.0
Process Node
40 nm
28 nm
Shading Units
960+50%
640
Compute (TFLOPS)
1.306 TFLOPS+7%
1.216 TFLOPS
ROPs
32+100%
16
TMUs
48+20%
40
L1 Cache
192 KB+20%
160 KB
L2 Cache
512 KB+100%
256 KB

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

FeatureRadeon HD 6970MRadeon R7 250X
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 2 GB of video memory. Bus width: System vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (Radeon HD 6970M) vs 256 KB (Radeon R7 250X) — the Radeon HD 6970M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

FeatureRadeon HD 6970MRadeon R7 250X
VRAM Capacity
2 GB
2 GB
Memory Type
Shared
GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth
System
72 GB/s
Bus Width
System
128-bit
L2 Cache
512 KB+100%
256 KB
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon HD 6970M draws 75W versus the Radeon R7 250X's 80W — a 6.5% difference. The Radeon HD 6970M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon HD 6970M) vs 400W (Radeon R7 250X). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs 1x 6-pin.

FeatureRadeon HD 6970MRadeon R7 250X
TDP
75W-6%
80W
Recommended PSU
350W-13%
400W
Power Connector
1x 6-pin
1x 6-pin
Length
210mm
Height
111mm
Slots
2
Temp (Load)
70°C
Perf/Watt
30.3+7%
28.4
💰

Value Analysis

The Radeon R7 250X costs 37.5% less ($18 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 47.3 (Radeon HD 6970M) vs 75.6 (Radeon R7 250X) — the Radeon R7 250X offers 59.8% better value. The Radeon R7 250X is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2011).

FeatureRadeon HD 6970MRadeon R7 250X
MSRP
$99
Avg Price (30d)
$48
$30-38%
Performance per Dollar
47.3
75.6+60%
Codename
Blackcomb
Cape Verde
Release
January 4 2011
February 13 2014
Ranking
#654
#655