Radeon R7 240 vs GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile with Radeon R7 240, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2070 Mobile outperforms R7 240 by a whopping 1361% 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 | 195 | 910 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.16 |
| Power efficiency | 21.08 | 5.53 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | TU106B | Oland |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 29 January 2019 (6 years ago) | 8 October 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $69 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2304 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 1305 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1485 MHz | 780 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,800 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 213.8 | 14.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.843 TFLOPS | 0.448 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 144 | 20 |
| Tensor Cores | 288 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 36 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 2.3 MB | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 256 KB |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | N/A |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
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 | + |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
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.
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.
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 HD | 120
+1400%
| 8−9
−1400%
|
| 1440p | 76
+1420%
| 5−6
−1420%
|
| 4K | 48
+1500%
| 3−4
−1500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 8.63 |
| 1440p | no data | 13.80 |
| 4K | no data | 23.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+1400%
|
12−14
−1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+1700%
|
4−5
−1700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 120
+1400%
|
8−9
−1400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+1400%
|
12−14
−1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+1700%
|
4−5
−1700%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 121
+1413%
|
8−9
−1413%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 122
+1425%
|
8−9
−1425%
|
| Fortnite | 188
+1467%
|
12−14
−1467%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 113
+1514%
|
7−8
−1514%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+1583%
|
6−7
−1583%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 196
+1533%
|
12−14
−1533%
|
| Valorant | 234
+1363%
|
16−18
−1363%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 134
+1389%
|
9−10
−1389%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+1400%
|
12−14
−1400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+1439%
|
18−20
−1439%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+1700%
|
4−5
−1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 124
+1450%
|
8−9
−1450%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120
+1400%
|
8−9
−1400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 113
+1514%
|
7−8
−1514%
|
| Fortnite | 149
+1390%
|
10−11
−1390%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 112
+1500%
|
7−8
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+1583%
|
6−7
−1583%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 115
+1543%
|
7−8
−1543%
|
| Metro Exodus | 69
+1625%
|
4−5
−1625%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 173
+1630%
|
10−11
−1630%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 142
+1478%
|
9−10
−1478%
|
| Valorant | 230
+1543%
|
14−16
−1543%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 121
+1413%
|
8−9
−1413%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+1700%
|
4−5
−1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 117
+1363%
|
8−9
−1363%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 111
+1486%
|
7−8
−1486%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 106
+1414%
|
7−8
−1414%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 94
+1467%
|
6−7
−1467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130
+1525%
|
8−9
−1525%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+1380%
|
5−6
−1380%
|
| Valorant | 154
+1440%
|
10−11
−1440%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 141
+1467%
|
9−10
−1467%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+1400%
|
5−6
−1400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+1500%
|
14−16
−1500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+1500%
|
4−5
−1500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 42
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1650%
|
10−11
−1650%
|
| Valorant | 229
+1536%
|
14−16
−1536%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 92
+1433%
|
6−7
−1433%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 79
+1480%
|
5−6
−1480%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 76
+1420%
|
5−6
−1420%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+1640%
|
5−6
−1640%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+1767%
|
3−4
−1767%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 94
+1467%
|
6−7
−1467%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
| Metro Exodus | 26
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50
+1567%
|
3−4
−1567%
|
| Valorant | 202
+1583%
|
12−14
−1583%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 52
+1633%
|
3−4
−1633%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+1517%
|
6−7
−1517%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 38
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1833%
|
3−4
−1833%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 46
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 46
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
This is how RTX 2070 Mobile and R7 240 compete in popular games:
- RTX 2070 Mobile is 1400% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2070 Mobile is 1420% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2070 Mobile is 1500% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.56 | 2.16 |
| Recency | 29 January 2019 | 8 October 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 50 Watt |
RTX 2070 Mobile has a 1361.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
R7 240, on the other hand, has 130% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon R7 240 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.
