OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA GeForce MX250 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£35VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):?

NVIDIA GeForce MX250 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 5 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

4.7/10

Overall score

Score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

40%

3.7

Technical score

25%

3.7

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.7

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 98% of graphics cards
6.3

Value for money

Value for money
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components

70%

4.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 90%
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

44%

2.3

Performance

24%

1.4

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

7.0

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

5.2

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 96%
3.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models

3.7

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.3

Average grade

20%

8.1

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 97%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £35
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the NVIDIA GeForce MX250

Based on 3 · 4

Reviewers agree it beats integrated graphics, but are split on whether its gaming performance is good enough.
Praised
Mixed views
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the NVIDIA GeForce MX250

Based on 194 owners sharing their experience in online comments

30%positive17%mixed53%negative

Owners appreciate its capable gaming and work performance, but low frame rates, overheating, and stuttering dominate complaints.

What owners dislike

  • Demanding games like Cyberpunk, Apex and Warzone can drop to 3 to 30 fps, even at low settings or 720p.48
  • Frame rates often fall sharply after 10 to 15 minutes of play, with stutter in some games.32
  • The laptop gets very hot in games, reaching around 80 to 90°C; a cooling pad or stand helps.20
  • Some units have a basic HD TN panel that owners find weak, especially for design work.10
  • Owners with the same specs report far lower fps than shown in the video, even at minimum settings.8
  • Frame rates can drop sharply while charging during play; one owner says high performance power mode fixed it.6
  • Some units fail early, with the power button or motherboard failing and the laptop refusing to start.6
  • Fans get loud, and one owner hears a grinding noise; the fan stays loud on max performance even for basic tasks.5
  • Under long gaming sessions the CPU and GPU clock down sharply, with owners blaming weak power supply and small cooling.4
  • Some owners get OpenGL errors or device initialization failures, and manual driver updates can cut performance.4

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA GeForce MX250

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components:

44%

2.3

Performance

24%

1.4

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

7.0

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

5.2

Connectivity

3.7
Reviews score
3.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components:

70%

4.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,134 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 1,134 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 98.3% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
2,557 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 2,557 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 97.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
1,009 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 1,009 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 96.8% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
1.13 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 1.13 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 96.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 2 GB of VRAM, which is less than 94.3% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
64 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 64 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 96.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.3% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
48.06 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 48.06 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 98% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
7,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 7,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 90.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x4
This graphics card uses x4 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 98.8% of graphics cards and equal to 1.2% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12.1
This graphics card supports DirectX 12.1, which is older than on 77.2% of graphics cards and equal to 4.5% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
3
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 3 displays, which is fewer than 91% of graphics cards and equal to 6.6% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
0
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 0 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 96.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
?
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
?
Power consumption while under peak load
25 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 25 W under peak load, which is lower than 99.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
300 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 300 W PSU, which is lower than that of 94% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
?
PCIe power spec
?
Show more
Size
?
Length
?
Height
?
Slot width
?
Weight
?
Show more

NVIDIA GeForce MX250 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 14.86x cheaper
    NVIDIA GeForce MX250 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£35 vs £520).
    £35 vs £520
  • 83.3% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (2 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    2 W vs 12 W
  • 88.6% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (25 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    25 W vs 220 W
  • 74.8% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (74 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    74 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 14.86x cheaper
    NVIDIA GeForce MX250 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£35 vs £520).
    £35 vs £520
  • 74.8% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (74 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    74 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 83.3% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (2 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    2 W vs 12 W
  • 88.6% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (25 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    25 W vs 220 W
  • 36.8% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,582 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,582 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 48.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models

    3.7

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.7 vs 7.2
  • 37 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (3 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    3 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 160 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (24 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    24 vs 184
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • 48.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models

    3.7

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.7 vs 7.2
  • 52.6% lower sentiment score
    3.7 vs 7.8
  • 18.3% worse value for money
    NVIDIA GeForce MX250 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.27 vs 7.4).
    6.27 vs 7.41
  • 36.8% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,582 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,582 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 37 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (3 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    3 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 160 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (24 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    24 vs 184
  • 89.9% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (38 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    38 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 84.3% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (25.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    25.31 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 48 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (16 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    16 vs 64
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 95% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (1.1 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    1.13 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 20.9% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,519 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,519 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 88.7% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (2,557 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    2,557 points vs 22,638 points
  • 92.3% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1,134 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    1,134 points vs 14,779 points
  • 4 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2019 vs 2023).
    February 2019
    2019 vs 2023
  • 91.6% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (1,009 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    1,009 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 95.9% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (1.2 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    1.22 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 91.7% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.04 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 3,968 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (384 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    384 vs 4,352
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 89.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (48.1 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    48.06 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 63.2% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (7,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    7,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    64 bit vs 192 bit
  • 14.2% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,502 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,502 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 62.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (48 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    48 KB vs 128 KB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x4 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x4 vs x16
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Lower VRS tier
    This graphics card supports a lower VRS tier than the average graphics card (Tier 1 vs Tier 2).
    Tier 1 vs Tier 2
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12.1 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12.1 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.5 vs 6.8).
    6.5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 96.1% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (900 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    900 million vs 22,900 million
  • 3 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (0 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    0 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (3 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    3 vs 4
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • No HDMI output
    This graphics card does not include HDMI output, the average graphics card does.
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (3 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    3 vs 6
  • No 3D output
    This graphics card does not support 3D output, the average graphics card does.
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

4.0
VerTechHD
≈ estimated
19/01/2021
Comparison · MX250 vs GTX 1050 gaming tests
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce MX250 is not recommended for gaming, since the GTX 1050 performs clearly better.
7.0
VerTechHD
≈ estimated
09/01/2021
Hands-on review · gaming tests at 720p
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce MX250 is fine as a mid-range ultrabook GPU, but it struggles with demanding AAA games.
7.0
VerTechHD
≈ estimated
09/01/2020
Hands-on review · gaming performance tests
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce MX250 is only worth it on a tight budget or for lower-end and indie games, not for hardcore gaming.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Overview video
Overview video
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
laptopmedia.com
≈ estimated
11/11/2020
Benchmark test · Budget laptop GPU
Verdict
The NVIDIA GeForce MX250 suits Low and Medium settings and light games like League of Legends, but the newest titles on High settings need a GTX 1050 Ti.
5.0
laptopmedia.com
≈ estimated
12/11/2020
Benchmark test · Thin laptop GPU
Verdict
The NVIDIA GeForce MX250 (10W) handles CS:GO and League of Legends, but it trails the 25W model in every game, so skip it if speed matters.
8.0
laptopmedia.com
≈ estimated
11/11/2020
Benchmark test · Budget laptop GPU
Verdict
The NVIDIA GeForce MX250 suits Low and Medium settings and light games like League of Legends, but the newest titles on High settings need a GTX 1050 Ti.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA GeForce MX250

  • Efficient entry-level performance for light gaming (e.g., CS:GO, League of Legends, DOTA 2) at 1080p
  • Suitable for thin and light ultrabooks due to low power consumption (10W and 25W variants)
  • Better performance compared to most standard integrated graphics (e.g., Intel UHD/Iris Plus)
  • Decent for basic productivity tasks like light video editing and 3D modeling
  • Supports modern features like DirectX 12 and H.265 video decoding

What customers don't like about NVIDIA GeForce MX250

  • Struggles with modern AAA titles, often requiring 720p resolution and low settings for playability
  • Inconsistent performance across laptops due to significant throttling in poorly cooled systems
  • Confusing branding as the 10W variant is roughly 30% slower than the 25W version without clear labelling
  • Lack of a hardware NVENC encoder, forcing all video encoding onto the CPU
  • Essentially a rebrand of the older MX150 with only marginal clock speed improvements
  • Limited 2GB VRAM is insufficient for many newer games and higher-resolution creative workflows

Verdict

The NVIDIA GeForce MX250 is an entry-level mobile graphics card based on the Pascal GP108 architecture and a 14nm manufacturing process. It typically features 384 shading units, 2GB of GDDR5 VRAM on a 64-bit memory bus, and exists in two distinct power variants: a 25W model with a boost clock of 1582 MHz and a power-efficient 10W model with a lower boost of 1038 MHz. Its main advantages include significantly better performance than standard integrated graphics for light photo editing and casual 720p/1080p gaming on low settings, all while maintaining a slim profile suitable for ultraportable laptops. However, it suffers from a lack of modern features like ray tracing or DLSS support, a limited 2GB memory capacity that struggles with modern AAA titles, and potential thermal throttling in poorly cooled notebook designs.

Compare NVIDIA GeForce MX250 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA GeForce MX250 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found