Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) vs R7 240
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 240 with Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge), including specs and performance data.
R7 240 outperforms R4 (Stoney Ridge) by a whopping 102% 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 | 909 | 1133 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.53 | 5.48 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) |
| GPU code name | Oland | Stoney Ridge |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (12 years ago) | 1 June 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $69 | no data |
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 | 192 |
| Boost clock speed | 780 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 14.00 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.448 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 20 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | N/A | no 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 type | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | no data |
| 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | no data |
| 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 (FL 12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
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.
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.
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 | 18−20
+100%
| 9
−100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.83 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how R7 240 and R4 (Stoney Ridge) compete in popular games:
- R7 240 is 100% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 43 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.16 | 1.07 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 1 June 2016 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 15 Watt |
R7 240 has a 101.9% higher aggregate performance score.
R4 (Stoney Ridge), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 233.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 240 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 240 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
