Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q vs Radeon R7 240

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD 8570 OEM HD 8670 OEM R5 240 OEM R5 340 OEM R5 340X OEM R5 430 OEM R7 240 R7 250 R7 340 OEM R7 350 OEM R7 350X OEM R7 430 OEM
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
3000 Mobile 3000 Max-Q 3000 Mobile Refresh 3000 X2 Mobile 4000 Mobile 4000 Max-Q 5000 Mobile 5000 Max-Q 5000 Mobile Refresh 5000 X2 Mobile 6000 Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 240 with Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

R7 240
2013, $69
2 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
2.16

RTX 3000 Max-Q outperforms R7 240 by a whopping 804% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R7 240 R7 240
RTX 3000 Max-Q RTX 3000 Max-Q

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking919314
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.16no data
Power efficiency5.5425.06
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameOlandTU106
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (12 years ago)27 May 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$69 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores3202304
Core clock speedno data600 MHz
Boost clock speed780 MHz1215 MHz
Number of transistors950 million10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate14.00175.0
Floating-point processing power0.448 TFLOPS5.599 TFLOPS
ROPs864
TMUs20144
Tensor Coresno data288
Ray Tracing Coresno data36
L1 Cache80 KB2.3 MB
L2 Cache256 KB4 MB

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsN/ANone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1150 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s448.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGANo outputs
HDMI+-
G-SYNC support-+

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
VR Readyno data+

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan-1.2.131
CUDA-7.5
DLSS-+

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.

R7 240 2.16
RTX 3000 Max-Q 19.53
+804%

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.

R7 240 900
Samples: 3843
RTX 3000 Max-Q 8131
+803%
Samples: 158

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.

R7 240 1220
RTX 3000 Max-Q 13617
+1016%

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 HD8−9
−825%
74
+825%
1440p4−5
−1025%
45
+1025%
4K3−4
−900%
30
+900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p8.63no data
1440p17.25no data
4K23.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 87
+0%
87
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 126
+0%
126
+0%
Far Cry 5 79
+0%
79
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 85
+0%
85
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 97
+0%
97
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 120
+0%
120
+0%
Far Cry 5 75
+0%
75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 52
+0%
52
+0%
Valorant 103
+0%
103
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+0%
49
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 65
+0%
65
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 34
+0%
34
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 76
+0%
76
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how R7 240 and RTX 3000 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3000 Max-Q is 825% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3000 Max-Q is 1025% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 3000 Max-Q is 900% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 2.16 19.53
Recency 8 October 2013 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 60 Watt

R7 240 has 20% lower power consumption.

RTX 3000 Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 804% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 240 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation one.

Other comparisons

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

R7 240 Radeon R7 240
vs
ATI HD 4770 Radeon HD 4770
RTX 3000 Max-Q Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q
vs
T2000 Mobile Quadro T2000 Mobile
R7 240 Radeon R7 240
vs
ATI HD 4830 Radeon HD 4830
R7 240 R7 240
vs
GeForce 405M 405M
R7 240 R7 240
vs
Go 6400 Go 6400
R7 240 R7 240
vs
ATI 9200 SE 9200 SE
R7 240 R7 240
vs
Parhelia PCI
R7 240 R7 240
vs
FX 5900 ZT FX 5900 ZT
R7 240 R7 240
vs
Quadro T1000 T1000
R7 240 R7 240
vs
ATI Xpress 1200 Mobile IGP Xpress 1200 Mobile IGP
R7 240 R7 240
vs
Parhelia HR256
R7 240 R7 240
vs
RTX A5000 Mobile RTX A5000 Mobile
R7 240 R7 240
vs
RTX 4090 Mobile RTX 4090 Mobile

Community ratings

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

3.2 1386 votes

Rate Radeon R7 240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 54 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 240 or Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.