We begin with Battlefield 4, tested using the game's Medium preset at 1920x1080. Click the screenshot for a full-size representation of how this title looks as we cruise through our benchmark.

As you can see, Battlefield still looks good at this detail setting, and AMD's Radeon R7 250X maintains at least 54 FPS. Let's move on to Metro: Last Light.

Although a DirectX 10 code path and the Low detail preset don't sound particularly cutting-edge, bear in mind that at its most demanding settings, Metro: Last Light brings almost any graphics configuration to its knees. As you can see in our screenshot, the game still looks great at our compromised settings. You still get little extras like shadows, even.
The Radeon R7 250X never falls below 33 FPS, and it maintains an average of 54 FPS. Not bad at all.

In contrast, the Radeon R7 250X can handle BioShock Infinite's High preset, which looks quite nice (as the screenshot shows). AMD's "latest" keeps its nose above 33 FPS and averages 49 FPS.

Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag has to run at its lowest detail settings on this class of card, but we are able to raise the texture quality setting to Normal and the environment quality from Very Low to Low. As with Metro: Last Light, that doesn't sound like an attractive combination. However, the output still looks pretty darned good. What's more, the Radeon R7 250X doesn't drop below 42 FPS.

Finally, let's look at Grid 2, which isn't particularly graphics-bound and allows us to utilize the High preset in addition to 4x MSAA. AMD's Radeon R7 250X delivers minimum frame rates above 59 FPS with an average in the 70s.





Why wouldn't we? What's wrong with an overclocked 2500K?
If you read this review you would see that the R7 250X is *exactly* the same as the 7770.
It does not have 384 shaders, it has 640. You're thinking of the R7 250, not the new R7 250X.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. We use detail settings that make sense for the boards we test.
Seeing a 290X get 200 FPS at low settings doesn't provide much insight, nor does it make sense to use high resolutions and details playable on the 290X that deliver 8 FPS on low-end cards.
That's not how it works, Achoo. I mention Newegg because I use them as a price indicator, not because we have any directive to do so.
The content management system will automatically target any keywords that pay and highlight them as links. Welcome to the future...
Why wouldn't we? What's wrong with an overclocked 2500K?
If you read this review you would see that the R7 250X is *exactly* the same as the 7770.
It does not have 384 shaders, it has 640. You're thinking of the R7 250, not the new R7 250X.
Because:
1) it works
2) for most games and low/mid-range GPUs, it is also just about as fast as the fastest current CPUs so there is no actual urge to use the highest-powered, newest and latest CPUs available.
You can't even buy a 2500K new. Use something newer that a new build with this card might actually have in it or be able to buy new.
You're kidding, right?
You responded to a thread titled:
"Radeon R7 250X Review: Reprising Radeon HD 7770 At $100"
with the words:
"why would you get this card? why not get the 7770 that's now in the same price range and has 256 more shaders instead."
...I mean, come on. That doesn't make a lot of sense in context.
You can't even buy a 2500K new. Use something newer that a new build with this card might actually have in it or be able to buy new.
An overclocked 2500K is worlds faster than a stock 4650K. Stock they're incredibly close when it comes to gaming.
Really, Intel hasn't improved IPC much since Sandy Bridge. Ivy and Haswell have been all about graphics improvements.
They may have some i5-4670k rigs but that does not mean all reviewers have access to it: individual reviewers have their own permanent rigs based on their long-term testing requirements (act as a reference CPU so all future benchmarks for the foreseeable future remain valid comparisons against the original rig) and other parts may get shuffled around between reviewers located in different cities, states or even countries. Using "one of their 4670k" is easier said than done if the reviewer lives 500km from the nearest other THG reviewer who happens to have one to spare.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. We use detail settings that make sense for the boards we test.
Seeing a 290X get 200 FPS at low settings doesn't provide much insight, nor does it make sense to use high resolutions and details playable on the 290X that deliver 8 FPS on low-end cards.
That's not how it works, Achoo. I mention Newegg because I use them as a price indicator, not because we have any directive to do so.
The content management system will automatically target any keywords that pay and highlight them as links. Welcome to the future...
Most people shopping for a new graphics card already know either the price range or performance level they are interested in and ignore anything that is more than about a rung up/down from that since this is all they usually need to confirm that prices seem to line up with expectations.
Having more models for a full-blown roundup/chart, sure. But for a review more intended to pin down for whom this model may make sense, comparing it to its nearest equivalents and next models up/down the food chain is fair enough IMO.