UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) vs Radeon R7 240

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 240 with UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU), including specs and performance data.

R7 240
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
2.33
+67.6%

R7 240 outperforms UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) by an impressive 68% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8461007
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.16no data
Power efficiency5.419.69
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Gen. 11 (2021)
GPU code nameOlandGen. 11
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)11 January 2021 (3 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 cores32024
Core clock speedno data350 MHz
Boost clock speed780 MHz800 MHz
Number of transistors950 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt4.8 - 10 Watt
Texture fill rate14.00no data
Floating-point processing power0.448 TFLOPSno data
ROPs8no data
TMUs20no 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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8no data
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsN/Ano 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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1150 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth72 GB/sno data
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 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
Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212_1
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data

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
+67.6%
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) 1.39

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
+89.1%
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) 645

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 HD12−14
+50%
8
−50%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.75no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6
+0%
6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how R7 240 and UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) compete in popular games:

  • R7 240 is 50% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 48 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.33 1.39
Recency 8 October 2013 11 January 2021
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 4 Watt

R7 240 has a 67.6% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 1150% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 240 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 240 is a desktop card while UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) 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
Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU)
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU)

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 1171 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 121 vote

Rate UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) 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.