Radeon R7 240 vs Quadro FX 4600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 4600 with Radeon R7 240, including specs and performance data.
R7 240 outperforms FX 4600 by a whopping 124% 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 | 1159 | 910 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.16 |
| Power efficiency | 0.55 | 5.53 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | G80 | Oland |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 5 March 2007 (18 years ago) | 8 October 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,999 | $69 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
FX 4600 and R7 240 have a nearly equal value for money.
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 | 96 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 780 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 681 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 134 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 24.00 | 14.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2304 TFLOPS | 0.448 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 20 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 96 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 229 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | 768 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 67.2 GB/s | 72 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | 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 | 11.1 (10_0) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 0.96 | 2.15 |
| Recency | 5 March 2007 | 8 October 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 768 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 134 Watt | 50 Watt |
R7 240 has a 124% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 168% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 240 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4600 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 4600 is a workstation 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.
