Radeon R5 A240 vs HD 8410G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8410G with Radeon R5 A240, including specs and performance data.
R5 A240 outperforms HD 8410G by a substantial 32% 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 | 1124 | 1024 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.23 | 2.06 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Scrapper | Oland |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 May 2013 (12 years ago) | 2014 (11 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1030 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 720 MHz | 780 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.640 | 15.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2765 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 8 |
| TMUs | 12 | 20 |
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 | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | System Shared | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1800 MBps |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 28.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 (1.2) |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.170 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dead Island 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dead Island 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dead Island 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.05 | 1.39 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 50 Watt |
HD 8410G has 42.9% lower power consumption.
R5 A240, on the other hand, has a 32.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R5 A240 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8410G in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8410G is a notebook 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.
