Radeon PRO W7800 48 GB vs R7 240
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 909 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.53 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | Oland | Navi 31 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (12 years ago) | 13 April 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $69 | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 4480 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1895 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 780 MHz | 2525 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 57,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 281 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 14.00 | 707.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.448 TFLOPS | 45.25 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 128 |
| TMUs | 20 | 280 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 70 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 2.2 MB |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 6 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 96 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 280 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | N/A | 2x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 864.0 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |
| 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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 13 April 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 281 Watt |
R7 240 has 462% lower power consumption.
PRO W7800 48 GB, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Radeon R7 240 and Radeon PRO W7800 48 GB. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Radeon R7 240 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon PRO W7800 48 GB 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.
