R7 240 vs R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
2.72
+16.2%

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms R7 240 by 16% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking763805
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for moneyno data0.15
ArchitectureGCN (2011−2017)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameKaveri SpectreOland
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date14 January 2014 (10 years old)8 October 2013 (10 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$69
Current priceno data$109 (1.6x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores384320
Core clock speed720 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data780 MHz
Number of transistorsno data950 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data50 Watt
Texture fill rateno data14.00
Floating-point performanceno data499.2 gflops

Size and 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 supportno dataPCIe 3.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x8
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataN/A

Memory

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 typeno dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1150 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data72 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

Video outputs and ports

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 Connectorsno data1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMIno data+
DisplayPort supportno data-

Technologies

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

AppAccelerationno data-
CrossFireno data1
Endurono data-
FreeSyncno data1
HD3Dno data-
PowerTuneno data-
TrueAudiono data-
ZeroCoreno data-
DDMA audiono data+

API support

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)DirectX® 12
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Mantleno data-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 2.72
+16.2%
R7 240 2.34

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms R7 240 by 16% in our combined benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 1406
+15.2%
R7 240 1220

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms R7 240 by 15% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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 HD14
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Battlefield 5 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Battlefield 5 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Battlefield 5 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

This is how R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and R7 240 compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 16.7% faster than R7 240

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 2.72 2.34
Recency 14 January 2014 8 October 2013

The Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.


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

User ratings

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


AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
AMD Radeon R7 240
Radeon R7 240

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User ratings: view and submit

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


3.9 20 votes

Rate AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 1019 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

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