GRID K140Q vs Radeon R5 M240
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M240 with GRID K140Q, including specs and performance data.
GRID K140Q outperforms R5 M240 by an impressive 53% 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 | 1101 | 958 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.18 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.02 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Jet | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 28 June 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $125 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 320 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.60 | 13.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6592 TFLOPS | 0.3264 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 20 | 16 |
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 | Not Listed | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | Not Listed | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 0 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | Not Listed | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 28.51 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.126 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 3.0 |
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.
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 | 14
−50%
| 21−24
+50%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.95 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−40.6%
|
45−50
+40.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−40.6%
|
45−50
+40.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−40.6%
|
45−50
+40.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
This is how R5 M240 and GRID K140Q compete in popular games:
- GRID K140Q is 50% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.13 | 1.73 |
| Recency | 18 September 2014 | 28 June 2013 |
R5 M240 has an age advantage of 1 year.
GRID K140Q, on the other hand, has a 53.1% higher aggregate performance score.
The GRID K140Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M240 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M240 is a notebook graphics card while GRID K140Q is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
