Radeon R9 M275 vs FireStream 9250
Radeon R9 M275
Popular choices:
FireStream 9250
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 R9 M275 is positioned at rank 543 and the FireStream 9250 is on rank 340, so the FireStream 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 R9 M275
Performance Per Dollar FireStream 9250
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon R9 M275 is significantly newer (2014 vs 2008). The Radeon R9 M275 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FireStream 9250 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FireStream 9250 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 4.5% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (1 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R9 M275.
| Insight | Radeon R9 M275 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+4.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / TeraScale (2005−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The FireStream 9250 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the FireStream 9250 holds the technical lead. Priced at $49 (vs $300), it costs 84% less, resulting in a 539.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R9 M275 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+539.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($300) | ✅More affordable ($49) |
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 R9 M275 and FireStream 9250
Radeon R9 M275
The Radeon R9 M275 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 28 2014. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 900 MHz to 925 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,115 points. Launch price was $799.99.
FireStream 9250
The FireStream 9250 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 16 2008. It features the TeraScale architecture. The core clock speed is 625 MHz. It has 800 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,165 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 M275 scores 1,115 and the FireStream 9250 reaches 1,165 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 M275 is built on GCN 1.0 while the FireStream 9250 uses TeraScale, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 640 (Radeon R9 M275) vs 800 (FireStream 9250). Raw compute: 1.184 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M275) vs 1 TFLOPS (FireStream 9250).
| Feature | Radeon R9 M275 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,115 | 1,165+4% |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | TeraScale |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 640 | 800+25% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.184 TFLOPS+18% | 1 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 M275 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 R9 M275 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the FireStream 9250 has 1 GB. The FireStream 9250 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Radeon R9 M275 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 1 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (FL11_1) (Radeon R9 M275) vs 10.1 (FireStream 9250). Vulkan: 1.2 vs N/A. OpenGL: 4.1 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 6 vs 1.
| Feature | Radeon R9 M275 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (FL11_1)+19% | 10.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | N/A |
| OpenGL | 4.1+24% | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 6+500% | 1 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: UVD3 (Radeon R9 M275) vs None (FireStream 9250). Decoder: VCE vs UVD 2.0. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,Flash (Radeon R9 M275) vs H.264,VC-1 (FireStream 9250).
| Feature | Radeon R9 M275 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | UVD3 | None |
| Decoder | VCE | UVD 2.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,Flash | H.264,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 M275 draws 75W versus the FireStream 9250's 150W — a 66.7% difference. The Radeon R9 M275 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon R9 M275) vs 350W (FireStream 9250). Power connectors: Mobile vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 234mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs Unknown.
| Feature | Radeon R9 M275 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-50% | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Mobile | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 234mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | Unknown-100% |
| Perf/Watt | 14.9+91% | 7.8 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 M275 launched at $300 MSRP and currently averages $300, while the FireStream 9250 launched at $999 and now averages $49. The FireStream 9250 costs 83.7% less ($251 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 3.7 (Radeon R9 M275) vs 23.8 (FireStream 9250) — the FireStream 9250 offers 543.2% better value. The Radeon R9 M275 is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2008).
| Feature | Radeon R9 M275 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $300-70% | $999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $300 | $49-84% |
| Performance per Dollar | 3.7 | 23.8+543% |
| Codename | Venus | RV770 |
| Release | January 28 2014 | June 16 2008 |
| Ranking | #851 | #840 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R9 M275 and FireStream 9250
