Radeon R7 240 vs Pro 560

Place in the ranking	481	844
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.16
Power efficiency	8.37	5.41
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	Polaris 21	Oland
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	18 April 2017 (7 years ago)	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$69

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 cores	1024	320
Core clock speed	907 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	780 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	950 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	58.05	14.00
Floating-point processing power	1.858 TFLOPS	0.448 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	64	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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	no data	168 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1270 MHz	1150 MHz
Memory bandwidth	81.28 GB/s	72 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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, 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 compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	-

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro 560 9.01
+287%

R7 240 2.33

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.

Pro 560 3475
+287%

R7 240 898

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.

Pro 560 3892
+219%

R7 240 1220

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

14−16

+367%

3−4
−367%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +340%	5−6 −340%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +300%	7−8 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +329%	14−16 −329%
Hitman 3	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +317%	12−14 −317%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +300%	7−8 −300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 +329%	7−8 −329%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +329%	14−16 −329%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +340%	5−6 −340%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +300%	7−8 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +329%	14−16 −329%
Hitman 3	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +317%	12−14 −317%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +300%	7−8 −300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 +329%	7−8 −329%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +329%	14−16 −329%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +340%	5−6 −340%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +329%	14−16 −329%
Hitman 3	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +317%	12−14 −317%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 +329%	7−8 −329%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +329%	14−16 −329%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

+317%

6−7
−317%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +322%	9−10 −322%
Hitman 3	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +307%	14−16 −307%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

+400%

3−4
−400%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Hitman 3	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +300%	9−10 −300%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+350%

2−3

−350%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.01	2.33
Recency	18 April 2017	8 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	50 Watt

Pro 560 has a 286.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

R7 240, on the other hand, has 50% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 560 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 560 is a mobile workstation card while Radeon R7 240 is a desktop one.

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