Radeon R7 240 vs ATI Mobility HD 4870
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 4870 with Radeon R7 240, including specs and performance data.
R7 240 outperforms Mobility HD 4870 by a small 9% 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 | 927 | 911 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.16 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 5.53 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | M98 | Oland |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 9 January 2009 (16 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 | 800 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 780 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 22.00 | 14.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.88 TFLOPS | 0.448 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 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 2.0 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 888 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 56.83 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 | - | + |
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.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
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 | 28
−7.1%
| 30−35
+7.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.30 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−2.6%
|
40−45
+2.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+2.5%
|
40−45
−2.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−2.6%
|
40−45
+2.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−2.6%
|
40−45
+2.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how ATI Mobility HD 4870 and R7 240 compete in popular games:
- R7 240 is 7% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.97 | 2.14 |
| Recency | 9 January 2009 | 8 October 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
R7 240 has a 8.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Mobility Radeon HD 4870 and Radeon R7 240.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 4870 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.
