- Home
- Processors
- Videocards
- Home
- / Videocards
- / Compare videocards
- / NVIDIA GeForce MX250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
NVIDIA GeForce MX250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce MX250 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
NVIDIA GeForce MX250 
vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce MX250
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 11 month(s) later
- Around 3% higher core clock speed: 937 MHz vs 914 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 7.5x lower typical power consumption: 10 Watt vs 75 Watt
- 2.4x more memory clock speed: 6008 MHz vs 1000 or 2500 MHz
- Around 11% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 240 vs 217
- Around 11% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 46.992 vs 42.396
- Around 43% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 535.24 vs 373.644
- Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.64 vs 2.54
- Around 13% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 44.7 vs 39.412
- Around 2% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 141.816 vs 139.158
| Specifications (specs) |
| Launch date | 21 February 2019 vs 13 March 2015 |
| Core clock speed | 937 MHz vs 914 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 10 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz vs 1000 or 2500 MHz |
| Benchmarks |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 240 vs 217 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 46.992 vs 42.396 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 535.24 vs 373.644 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.64 vs 2.54 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 44.7 vs 39.412 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 141.816 vs 139.158 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
- Around 8% higher boost clock speed: 1124 MHz vs 1038 MHz
- Around 67% higher pipelines: 640 vs 384
- Around 8% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2577 vs 2392
- Around 4% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 9744 vs 9329
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4148 vs 4027
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4148 vs 4027
- 3.8x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3350 vs 888
| Specifications (specs) |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz vs 1038 MHz |
| Pipelines | 640 vs 384 |
| Benchmarks |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2577 vs 2392 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9744 vs 9329 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4148 vs 4027 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 3710 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3357 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4148 vs 4027 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 3710 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3357 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3350 vs 888 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX250 GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
| PassMark - G3D Mark | | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | | |
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce MX250 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2392 | 2577 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 240 | 217 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9329 | 9744 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 46.992 | 42.396 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 535.24 | 373.644 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.64 | 2.54 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 44.7 | 39.412 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 141.816 | 139.158 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4027 | 4148 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3710 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4027 | 4148 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3710 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 888 | 3350 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce MX250 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M |
Essentials |
| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell |
| Code name | GP108B | GM107 |
| Launch date | 21 February 2019 | 13 March 2015 |
| Place in performance rating | 861 | 797 |
| Type | Laptop | Laptop |
Technical info |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 937 MHz | 914 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 640 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 10 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,800 million | 1,870 million |
| CUDA cores | 640 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,439 gflops |
| Texture fill rate | 44.96 GTexel / s |
Video outputs and ports |
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | 1 |
| HDMI |
| VGA аnalog display support | 1 |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Laptop size | medium sized |
API support |
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Memory |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 1000 or 2500 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 or GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 32 or 80 GB / s |
| Shared memory | 0 |
Technologies |
| Adaptive VSync |
| Ansel |
| BatteryBoost |
| CUDA |
| DSR |
| GameStream |
| GameWorks |
| GeForce Experience |
| GeForce ShadowPlay |
| GPU Boost |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder |
| Optimus |
| SLI |
Navigation
Differences Compare benchmarks Compare specifications (specs)
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare
Compare NVIDIA GeForce MX250 with others
NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs 
ATIRadeon X1600 XT NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs 
AMDRadeon R9 M295X Mac Edition NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs AMDRadeon R9 M380 NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs 
IntelIris Plus Graphics 650 NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs AMDRadeon 540 NVIDIAGeForce MX250 vs IntelUHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) About
AskGeek.io - Compare processors and videocards to choose the best.
Sections
Links
Language
English
Deutsch
Française
Español
Português
Русский © 2025, AskGeek.io