Radeon 780M vs R7 240

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 240 and Radeon 780M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 240
2013, $69
2 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
2.15

780M outperforms R7 240 by a whopping 651% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking934373
Place by popularitynot in top-10045
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.16no data
Power efficiency5.5783.58
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)
GPU code nameOlandPhoenix
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (12 years ago)31 January 2024 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$69 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores320768
Core clock speedno data800 MHz
Boost clock speed780 MHz2900 MHz
Number of transistors950 million25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate14.00139.2
Floating-point processing power0.448 TFLOPS8.909 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs2048
Ray Tracing Coresno data12
L0 Cacheno data192 KB
L1 Cache80 KB256 KB
L2 Cache256 KB2 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x8
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsN/ANone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1150 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth72 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGAMotherboard Dependent
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan-1.3

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

R7 240 2.15
Radeon 780M 16.14
+651%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

R7 240 897
Samples: 3951
Radeon 780M 6737
+651%
Samples: 12568

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R7 240 1220
Radeon 780M 7985
+555%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD4−5
−88.6%
35
1440p3−4
−87.5%
24
4K1−214
+1300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p17.25no data
1440p23.00no data
4K69.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 49 49
Counter-Strike 2 119 119
Cyberpunk 2077 39 39
Resident Evil 4 Remake 25 25

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 39 39
Battlefield 5 70−75 70−75
Counter-Strike 2 82 82
Cyberpunk 2077 31 31
Far Cry 5 45 45
Fortnite 90−95 90−95
Forza Horizon 4 65−70 65−70
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65 60−65
Valorant 116 116

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 23 23
Battlefield 5 70−75 70−75
Counter-Strike 2 39 39
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220 210−220
Cyberpunk 2077 24 24
Dota 2 100−105 100−105
Far Cry 5 41 41
Fortnite 90−95 90−95
Forza Horizon 4 65−70 65−70
Grand Theft Auto V 44 44
Metro Exodus 29 29
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65 60−65
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47 47
Valorant 103 103

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 70−75 70−75
Cyberpunk 2077 23 23
Dota 2 100−105 100−105
Far Cry 5 39 39
Forza Horizon 4 65−70 65−70
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65 60−65
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29 29
Valorant 120−130 120−130

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 90−95 90−95

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 27 27
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130 120−130
Grand Theft Auto V 18 18
Metro Exodus 21−24 21−24
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160 150−160
Valorant 79 79

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 45−50 45−50
Cyberpunk 2077 16 16
Far Cry 5 27 27
Forza Horizon 4 40−45 40−45
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20 20

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 35−40 35−40

4K
High

Atomic Heart 12−14 12−14
Counter-Strike 2 6 6
Grand Theft Auto V 21 21
Metro Exodus 12−14 12−14
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15 15
Valorant 43 43

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24−27 24−27
Counter-Strike 2 12−14 12−14
Cyberpunk 2077 6 6
Dota 2 55−60 55−60
Far Cry 5 12 12
Forza Horizon 4 27−30 27−30
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18 16−18

4K
Epic

Fortnite 16−18 16−18

This is how R7 240 and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 780M is 775% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 780M is 700% faster in 1440p
  • Radeon 780M is 1300% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.15 16.14
Recency 8 October 2013 31 January 2024
Chip lithography 28 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 15 Watt

Radeon 780M has a 651% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 86% more advanced lithography process, and 70% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 1404 votes

Rate Radeon R7 240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 2740 votes

Rate Radeon 780M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 240 or Radeon 780M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.