Radeon R5 A240 vs FirePro W6150M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W6150M with Radeon R5 A240, including specs and performance data.
W6150M outperforms R5 A240 by a whopping 309% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 652 | 1049 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.13 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Saturn | Oland |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 November 2015 (10 years ago) | 2014 (12 years ago) |
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 cores | 768 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 1075 MHz | 1030 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 780 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 51.60 | 15.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.651 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 48 | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
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).
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 1800 MBps |
| Memory bandwidth | 88 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s |
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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 (1.2) |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.170 |
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.64 | 1.38 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
W6150M has a 309% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The FirePro W6150M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 A240 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W6150M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon R5 A240 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
