Intel Arc A350M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX250
The Arc A350M has 132% better performance than the GeForce MX250 for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
We do not have any performance per dollar data for the Arc A350M and the GeForce MX250 for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
Summary
About the Intel Arc A350M GPU
The Intel Arc A350M is a mobile graphics card that launched in Q1 2022. It is built on the Generation 12.7 GPU microarchitecture (codename DG2-128) and is manufactured on a 6 nm process.
Memory
The Arc A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, with a 1,750 MHz memory clock and a 64 bit interface. This gives it a memory bandwidth of 112 Gb/s, which affects how fast it can transfer data to and from memory. GPU memory stores temporary data that helps the GPU with complex math and graphics operations. More memory is generally better, as not having enough can cause performance bottlenecks.
Cores and Clock Speeds
The Arc A350M includes 768 shading units, the processing units for handling parallel computing tasks. The GPU operates at a core clock speed of 1,150 MHz and can dynamically boost its clock speed up to 2,200 MHz. Complementing the processing units are 48 texture mapping units (TMUs) for efficient texture filtering and 24 render output units (ROPs) for pixel processing. Additionally, the GPU features 96 Xe Matrix Extensions (XMX) optimized for AI workloads and 6 ray tracing units dedicated to real-time ray tracing calculations.
Compatibility & Power Consumption
The GPU has a thermal design power (TDP) of 25 W. A power supply not strong enough to handle this might result in system crashes and potentially damage your hardware.
Benchmark Performance
The Arc A350M has the 173rd best 3DMark 11 Performance GPU score among the 543 benchmarked GPUs in our database. It achieves 10.24% of the performance of the best benchmarked GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090.
About the NVIDIA GeForce MX250 GPU
The NVIDIA GeForce MX250 is an end-of-life mobile graphics card that released in Q1 2019. It is built on the Pascal GPU microarchitecture (codename GP108B) and is manufactured on a 14 nm process.
Memory
The MX250 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, with a 1,502 MHz memory clock and a 64 bit interface. This gives it a memory bandwidth of 48.06 Gb/s, which affects how fast it can transfer data to and from memory. GPU memory stores temporary data that helps the GPU with complex math and graphics operations. More memory is generally better, as not having enough can cause performance bottlenecks.
Cores and Clock Speeds
The MX250 includes 384 CUDA cores, the processing units for handling parallel computing tasks. The GPU operates at a core clock speed of 937 MHz and can dynamically boost its clock speed up to 1,038 MHz. Complementing the processing units are 24 texture mapping units (TMUs) for efficient texture filtering and 16 render output units (ROPs) for pixel processing.
Compatibility & Power Consumption
The GPU has a thermal design power (TDP) of 10 W. A power supply not strong enough to handle this might result in system crashes and potentially damage your hardware.
Benchmark Performance
The MX250 has the 259th best 3DMark 11 Performance GPU score among the 543 benchmarked GPUs in our database. It achieves 4.42% of the performance of the best benchmarked GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090.
General Info
General overview of the GPU, including details like its manufacturer, release date, launch price, and current production status.
| Info | Arc A350M | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Intel | NVIDIA |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 | Pascal |
| Market Segment | Mobile | Mobile |
| Release Date | Q1 2022 | Q1 2019 |
| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |
| Shop | Check Price | Check Price |
Gaming Performance
Select a game to compare FPS metrics
FPS Benchmarks
This table showcases the average frame rate (FPS) achieved both GPUs in at various resolutions. Frame rate is a crucial indicator of how smoothly the GPU can run the game. A higher FPS generally translates to a smoother gameplay experience.
- Frames Per Second
Sons of the Forest | Arc A350M | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| Low - 1080p | -- | 20 FPS |
| Medium - 1080p | -- | 11 FPS |
| High - 1080p | -- | -- |
| Ultra - 1080p | -- | -- |
| QHD - 1440p | -- | -- |
| 4K UHD - 2160p | -- | -- |
Compare Frames Per Second (FPS)
The average frame rate (FPS) in can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative performance. Generally, higher FPS results in a smoother gameplay experience.
| GPU | Frames Per Second | |
|---|---|---|
| GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile | 22.2 | +107% |
| Radeon RX 560X Mobile | 21.5 | +101% |
| Radeon 660M | 16.7 | +56% |
| GeForce MX350 | 13.8 | +29% |
| GeForce MX250 | 10.7 | |
| Radeon RX 550 Mobile | 8.73 | -18% |
Compare Cost Per Frame
The average cost per frame in can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative value. Generally, a lower cost per frame implies better value for your money.
| GPU | Cost Per Frame | |
|---|---|---|
| Our database does not have enough data to compare the FPS per dollar with other GPUs. | ||
Benchmark Performance
The Arc A350M has 132% better performance than the GeForce MX250 for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
The Arc A350M is ranked 173rd with a score of 10,730, and the GeForce MX250 is ranked 259th with a score of 4,633.
We do not have any performance per dollar data for the Arc A350M and the GeForce MX250 for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
Relative Performance
The average score in the benchmark test can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative performance. Generally, powerful GPUs tend to have higher scores.
| GPU | Benchmark Performance | |
|---|---|---|
| GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q | 11,082.5 | +3% |
| RTX A500 Mobile | 10,818 | +1% |
| Arc A350M | 10,730 | |
| Radeon Pro Vega 16 | 10,569 | -2% |
| T600 Mobile | 10,498 | -2% |
| Radeon R9 M280X | 4,698 | -56% |
| Radeon RX 540 Mobile | 4,646 | -57% |
| GeForce MX250 | 4,633 | -57% |
| Radeon RX 550 Mobile | 4,559 | -58% |
| Radeon Pro 450 | 4,502 | -58% |
Relative Value For Money
The average performance per dollar in the benchmark test can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative value. A higher score implies a better value for your money.
| GPU | Performance Per Dollar | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Our database does not have enough data to compare the benchmark performance per dollar with other GPUs. | |||
Benchmark Scores
This table showcases the average performance scores achieved by both GPUs across industry-standard benchmark tests. These scores provide a valuable insight into overall performance. Powerful GPUs tend to have higher scores.
- Popular
| Benchmark | Arc A350M | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| 3DMark Time Spy Graphics | 3,050 (+176.52%) | 1,103 |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 3,397 (+178.33%) | 1,220.5 |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Graphics | 36,314.5 (+68.55%) | 21,545 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Standard Graphics | 7,147 (+95.27%) | 3,660 |
| 3DMark 11 Performance Score | 10,766 (+121.98%) | 4,850 |
| Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64 Bit | 149.3 (+49.9%) | 99.6 |
| PassMark G3D Mark | -- | 2,421 |
| PassMark G2D Mark | -- | 241 |
| Unigine Heaven 3.0 DirectX 11 | -- | 43.6 |
| Unigine Heaven 3.0 OpenGL | -- | 43.7 |
Technical Specs
Graphics Processor
General information about the graphics processing unit like their architecture, manufacturing process size, and transistor count. Newer GPU architectures generally bring efficiency improvements and may introduce technologies that enhance graphical capabilities.
| Spec | Arc A350M | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| Codename | DG2-128 | GP108B |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 | Pascal |
| Process Size | 6 nm | 14 nm |
| Transistors | 7,200 million | 1,800 million |
Memory Details
Memory specifications like their capacity, bandwidth, and clock speeds. GPU memory stores graphics data like frames, textures, and shadows which helps display rendered images. These specs are crucial for graphics-intense applications like gaming and 3D modeling.
| Spec | Arc A350M | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 112 Gb/s | 48.06 Gb/s |
| Memory Clock | 1,750 MHz | 1,502 MHz |
| Memory Interface | 64 bit | 64 bit |
| L1 Cache | 1.1 MB | 48 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 512 KB |
Board Compatibility
Compatibility information like their slot size, bus interface, power consumption, and display support. These specs are useful for verifying compatibility with your motherboard, power supply, and monitor.
| Spec | Arc A350M | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 25 W | 10 W |
| Outputs | Device Dependent | Device Dependent |
Cores & Clock Speeds
Processing power information like its cores and clock speed. These specs impact how fast they can process graphics. Each type of core or component serves a specific computational purpose.
| Spec | Arc A350M | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| Shading Units | 768 | -- |
| CUDA Cores | -- | 384 |
| Execution Units (EU) | 6 | -- |
| Stream Multiprocessors (SM) | -- | 3 |
| Texture Mapping Units (TMU) | 48 | 24 |
| Render Output Units (ROP) | 24 | 16 |
| Xe Matrix Extensions (XMX) | 96 | -- |
| Ray Tracing Units (RTU) | 6 | -- |
| Core Clock Speed | 1,150 MHz | 937 MHz |
| Core Clock Speed (Boost) | 2,200 MHz | 1,038 MHz |
Theoretical Performance
Theoretical performance numbers derived from the raw specifications of the different components like core count and clock speeds. While these provide a glimpse into peak processing power, they do not represent real-world performance.
| Spec | Arc A350M | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| Pixel Fill Rate | 52.8 GPixel/s | 16.61 GPixel/s |
| Texture Fill Rate | 105.6 GTexel/s | 24.91 GTexel/s |
| FP32 Performance | 3.38 TFLOPS | 797.2 GFLOPS |
| FP64 Performance | 844.8 GFLOPS | 24.91 GFLOPS |
API Support
Graphics API versions supported by these graphics cards. APIs evolve over time, introducing new features and functionalities. Older GPUs may not support recent versions.
| Spec | Arc A350M | GeForce MX250 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.8 |
Check out these comparisons for similar GPUs:
Looking for alternatives? Check out these similar GPUs:
* Performance rating, performance per dollar, and rankings are based on the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark and MSRP.