Radeon R5 M335 vs R7 240

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 240 with Radeon R5 M335, including specs and performance data.

R7 240
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
2.33
+62.9%

R7 240 outperforms R5 M335 by an impressive 63% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8521004
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.16no data
Power efficiency5.35no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameOlandExo
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)21 October 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$69 no data

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 cores320320
Compute unitsno data5
Core clock speedno data1070 MHz
Boost clock speed780 MHz1070 MHz
Number of transistors950 million690 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Wattunknown
Texture fill rate14.0021.40
Floating-point processing power0.448 TFLOPS0.6848 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs2020

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 supportPCIe 3.0PCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x8
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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1150 MHz1100 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s14.4 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGANo outputs
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D-+
PowerTune-+
DualGraphics-+
ZeroCore-+
Switchable graphics-+
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 12DirectX® 12
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL1.2Not Listed
Vulkan-+
Mantle-+

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.

R7 240 2.33
+62.9%
R5 M335 1.43

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 240 897
+63.7%
R5 M335 548

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
+33.9%
R5 M335 911

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 HD16−18
+60%
10
−60%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.31no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
+0%
6
+0%
World of Tanks 26
+0%
26
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
World of Tanks 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how R7 240 and R5 M335 compete in popular games:

  • R7 240 is 60% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 44 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.33 1.43
Recency 8 October 2013 21 October 2015
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB

R7 240 has a 62.9% higher aggregate performance score.

R5 M335, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Radeon R7 240 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M335 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 240 is a desktop card while Radeon R5 M335 is a notebook one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 240
Radeon R7 240
AMD Radeon R5 M335
Radeon R5 M335

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


3.3 1215 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 149 votes

Rate Radeon R5 M335 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.