Radeon R5 M240 Rebrand vs PRO W7500

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking121not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation100.00no data
Power efficiency37.32no data
ArchitectureRDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameNavi 33Mars
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date3 August 2023 (1 year ago)10 January 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$429 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1792384
Core clock speed1500 MHz650 MHz
Boost clock speed1700 MHz700 MHz
Number of transistors13,300 million950 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)70 Wattno data
Texture fill rate190.416.80
Floating-point processing power12.19 TFLOPS0.5376 TFLOPS
ROPs648
TMUs11224
Ray Tracing Cores28no 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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x8
Length216 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR6DDR3
Maximum RAM amount8 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1344 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth172.0 GB/s14.4 GB/s

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 Connectors4x DisplayPort 2.1No outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 (11_1)
Shader Model6.75.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.21.2
Vulkan1.31.2.131

Pros & cons summary


Recency 3 August 2023 10 January 2014
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 6 nm 28 nm

PRO W7500 has an age advantage of 9 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon PRO W7500 and Radeon R5 M240 Rebrand. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon PRO W7500 is a workstation card while Radeon R5 M240 Rebrand is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon PRO W7500
Radeon PRO W7500
AMD Radeon R5 M240 Rebrand
Radeon R5 M240 Rebrand

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 17 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 4 votes

Rate Radeon R5 M240 Rebrand on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.