Radeon R7 M260X vs Radeon R7 250
Radeon R7 M260X
Popular choices:
Radeon R7 250
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 R7 M260X is positioned at rank 410 and the Radeon R7 250 is on rank 107, so the Radeon R7 250 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R7 M260X
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R7 250
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R7 250 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.8% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon R7 M260X offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Radeon R7 M260X | Radeon R7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R7 250 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R7 250 holds the technical lead. Priced at $25 (vs $35), it costs 29% less, resulting in a 45.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R7 M260X | Radeon R7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+45.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($35) | ✅More affordable ($25) |
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 R7 M260X and Radeon R7 250
Radeon R7 M260X
The Radeon R7 M260X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 6 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 620 MHz to 715 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,013 points.
Radeon R7 250
The Radeon R7 250 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 8 2013. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1050 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 65W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,051 points. Launch price was $89.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R7 M260X scores 1,013 and the Radeon R7 250 reaches 1,051 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R7 M260X is built on GCN 1.0 while the Radeon R7 250 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (Radeon R7 M260X) vs 384 (Radeon R7 250). Raw compute: 0.5491 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 M260X) vs 0.8064 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 250). Boost clocks: 715 MHz vs 1050 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Radeon R7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,013 | 1,051+4% |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.5491 TFLOPS | 0.8064 TFLOPS+47% |
| Boost Clock | 715 MHz | 1050 MHz+47% |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Radeon R7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 R7 M260X comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R7 250 has 2 GB. The Radeon R7 M260X offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Radeon R7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_1) (Radeon R7 M260X) vs 11.1 (Radeon R7 250). Vulkan: N/A vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Radeon R7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_1)+8% | 11.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6+7% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 1.0 (Radeon R7 M260X) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon R7 250). Decoder: UVD 3.0 vs UVD 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MVC (Radeon R7 M260X) vs MPEG-2,VC-1,H.264,MPEG-4 (Radeon R7 250).
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Radeon R7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 1.0 | VCE 1.0 |
| Decoder | UVD 3.0 | UVD 4.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MVC | MPEG-2,VC-1,H.264,MPEG-4 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R7 M260X draws 75W versus the Radeon R7 250's 65W — a 14.3% difference. The Radeon R7 250 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon R7 M260X) vs 300W (Radeon R7 250). Power connectors: Mobile vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 168mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 85 vs 75.
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Radeon R7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 65W-13% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | Mobile | None |
| Length | 0mm | 168mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 85 | 75-12% |
| Perf/Watt | 13.5 | 16.2+20% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R7 M260X launched at $139 MSRP and currently averages $35, while the Radeon R7 250 launched at $89 and now averages $25. The Radeon R7 250 costs 28.6% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 28.9 (Radeon R7 M260X) vs 42.0 (Radeon R7 250) — the Radeon R7 250 offers 45.3% better value. The Radeon R7 M260X is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2013).
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260X | Radeon R7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $139 | $89-36% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $35 | $25-29% |
| Performance per Dollar | 28.9 | 42.0+45% |
| Codename | Opal | Oland |
| Release | December 6 2015 | October 8 2013 |
| Ranking | #878 | #871 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R7 M260X and Radeon R7 250
