Skip to content
RU

GeForce 830M vs GeForce MX250: specs and benchmark comparison

ANVIDIA · Maxwell

NVIDIA GeForce 830M

  • 2 GB DDR3

March 12, 2014

BNVIDIA · Pascal

NVIDIA GeForce MX250

    February 20, 2019

    Short verdict

    Not enough data for a performance conclusion: the database has no comparable benchmarks for this pair. Below are the key differences in official specifications.

    Compare with AI

    Advantages

    Only measured and rated values: a noticeable benchmark gap and specs where more is better.

    Where GeForce 830M is better0

    No advantages found in our data.

    Where GeForce MX250 is better0

    No advantages found in our data.

    Benchmarks

    Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions. Laptop chip results depend on the laptop model: its maker sets the power limit and cooling.

    • Blender Benchmark 2.90

      GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better

      No advantage conclusion: small sample in one of the results.

      About the measurement and source
      A · NVIDIA GeForce 830M

      1,128.8 s · community measurement, sample 1 · November 14, 2026

      Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)

      Median of 1 submissions (0 outliers excluded), interquartile range 1128.8–1128.8; submissions 2020-10-08 to 2020-10-08; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.

      B · NVIDIA GeForce MX250

      589.8 s · community measurement, sample 1 · November 14, 2026

      Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)

      Median of 1 submissions (0 outliers excluded), interquartile range 589.83–589.83; submissions 2020-09-08 to 2020-09-08; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.

      difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.

      Render time of a single Cycles scene without synchronization. Median of submissions after filtering.

    Reference results (21)
    BenchmarkABDifference
    Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA)1,112.8532.7reference
    Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA)—499.1no pair
    Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA)—535.3no pair
    Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA)—514.1no pair
    Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA)—448.1no pair
    Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA)—1,698.3no pair
    Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA)—1,422no pair
    Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA)—1,238.2no pair
    Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA)—1,140.2no pair
    Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (CUDA)—1,627.3no pair
    Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA)—98.6no pair
    Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA)—106.3no pair
    Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA)—106.7no pair
    Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA)—89.7no pair
    Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA)—84.7no pair
    Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)—78.5no pair
    Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)—79.8no pair
    Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)—73.8no pair
    Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)—83.3no pair
    Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)—80.7no pair
    Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal)—98.4no pair

    Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.

    Specifications

    Chip maker values. The laptop maker sets the power limit and clocks in each laptop.

    Chip

    • GPU chip

      AGM108

      BGP108

      differs
    • Architecture

      AMaxwell

      BPascal

      differs
    • Shader units

      Ano data

      B384 (CUDA cores)

      no data for A

      Shader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.

    Clocks

    • Base clock

      A1,029 MHz

      Bno data

      no data for B

    Memory

    • Video memory

      A2 GB

      Bno data

      no data for B
    • Memory type

      ADDR3

      BGDDR5

      differs
    • Memory bus

      A64 bit

      B64 bit

      equal
    • Memory bandwidth

      A14.4 GB/s

      Bno data

      no data for B

      Excludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.

    Power and dimensions

    • Interface

      APCIe 3.0 x16

      BPCIe 3.0 x4

      differs

    “More” does not always mean “better”: higher power draw or size is a system requirement, not an advantage (such bars are dimmed).

    Compare with AI

    An AI model reviews the specs and benchmarks of this pair and gives a plain-language verdict on who each model suits.

    AI verdict

    Questions and answers

    Which PCIe interface do the cards use?

    NVIDIA GeForce 830M: PCIe 3.0 x16. NVIDIA GeForce MX250: PCIe 3.0 x4.

    Data sources (2)
    • Wikipedia (English) — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce 830M, specifications of NVIDIA GeForce MX250, release date and launch pricechecked November 14, 2026
    • Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation) — benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.83, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.90, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.81a, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.82, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.92, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.93.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.6.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0checked November 14, 2026

    How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.

    TelegramVK