AMD
Radeon R9 285 vs GeForce MX250
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
NVIDIA
GeForce MX250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared R9 285 and GeForce MX250 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗R9 285 outperforms GeForce MX250 by ~10% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+10%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 32Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: Radeon R9 285 (~7%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider R9 285
- Higher catalog performance index
- Higher catalog value index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 2.1 · Not supported
Reasons to consider GeForce MX250
- Lower stated power consumption
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0, CUDA 6.1 · NVIDIA Image Scaling (NIS)
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
AMD
NVIDIAPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3431
60100
10054
5656
Graphics card ranking
Positions 242–247of 321
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Radeon R9 285
108 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
34Better
31
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
31Better
29
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
28Better
26
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
60
100Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
46Better
43
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
DisplayPort
HDMI
Device class
Max monitors
Max resolution
USB Type-C
Vulkan
OpenGL
DirectX
TFLOPSBetter
Power consumptionBetter
Release date
Architecture
Memory type
Power connector
Thickness
Compute API
Launch price—
Shader units / coresBetter
Process nodeBetter
Clock speedBetter
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAM
Memory frequencyBetter
Memory busBetter
Memory bandwidthBetter
Interface
Power consumptionBetter
Recommended PSU
Length
Die sizeBetter
Memory cache
Transistor countBetter
Upscaling
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares R9 285 and GeForce MX250 across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
R9 285GeForce MX250
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
175 FPS
157 FPS
1080p Ultra
120 FPS
110 FPS
1440p Ultra
65 FPS
59 FPS
4K Ultra
24 FPS
21 FPS
Counter-Strike 2R9 285175 FPSGeForce MX250157 FPSR9 285120 FPSGeForce MX250110 FPSR9 28565 FPSGeForce MX25059 FPSR9 28524 FPSGeForce MX25021 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077R9 285113 FPSGeForce MX250101 FPSR9 28595 FPSGeForce MX25087 FPSR9 28547 FPSGeForce MX25043 FPSR9 28516 FPSGeForce MX25014 FPS
Forza Horizon 5R9 285142 FPSGeForce MX250128 FPSR9 28590 FPSGeForce MX25083 FPSR9 28558 FPSGeForce MX25053 FPSR9 28535 FPSGeForce MX25031 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyR9 28592 FPSGeForce MX25083 FPSR9 28575 FPSGeForce MX25069 FPSR9 28542 FPSGeForce MX25038 FPSR9 28516 FPSGeForce MX25015 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 10034319%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 10037383%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 10040385%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 10056560%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1006010050%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 10044425%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 10043415%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 10040385%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 10046452%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 10040385%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX12.012.1
Vulkan1.21.4
OpenGL4.64.6
UpscalingNot supportedNVIDIA Image Scaling (NIS)
Compute APIOpenCL 2.1OpenCL 3.0, CUDA 6.1
Architecture and release
ArchitectureGCN 3.0Pascal / Turing / Ampere
Process node28 nm14 nmBetter
Release date20142019
Device classDesktopMobile
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count5000 millionBetter1800 million
Die size366 mm²74 mm²Better
Shader units / cores1792Better384
Base clock918 MHz1519 MHzBetter
Boost clock918 MHz1582 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 3x16PCIe 3.0 x4
Length221 mmOEM dependent
ThicknessDual-slotIGP
Recommended PSU450 WOEM dependent
Power connector6+6 pinNone
Display outputs and limits
HDMIHDMI 1.4aOEM dependent
DisplayPortDisplayPort 1.2OEM dependent
USB Type-CNoOEM dependent
Max monitors4OEM dependent
Max resolution4096 × 2160Depends on host system
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM2 GB GDDR52 GB GDDR5
Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5 / GDDR6
Memory bus256 bitBetter64 bit
TFLOPS3.29Better1.215
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 32
- Specifications
- 0 / 69
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (4)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (3)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: R9 285 or GeForce MX250?+
R9 285 has the higher overall gaming score, while R9 285 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
GeForce MX250 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
GeForce MX250 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
R9 285 offers more overall performance, while R9 285 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
GeForce MX250 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
R9 285 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
R9 285 leads in combined 1440p performance. R9 285 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
R9 285 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
GeForce MX250 is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
GeForce MX250 is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to R9 285 if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.