ATI VGA Wonder vs Radeon R7 240

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking850not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.16no data
Power efficiency5.32no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Wonder (1990−1992)
GPU code nameOland18800-1
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)5 February 1990 (34 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 cores320no data
Core clock speedno data10 MHz
Boost clock speed780 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm800 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Wattno data
Texture fill rate14.00no data
Floating-point processing power0.448 TFLOPSno data
ROPs81
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 x8PCI
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slot1-slot
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 typeGDDR5DRAM
Maximum RAM amount2 GB256 KB
Memory bus width128 Bit32 Bit
Memory clock speed1150 MHz10 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s40 MB/s

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 VGA1x VGA
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 compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 12N/A
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6N/A
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan-N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 8 October 2013 5 February 1990
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 256 KB
Chip lithography 28 nm 800 nm

R7 240 has an age advantage of 23 years, a 819100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 2757.1% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R7 240 and VGA Wonder. We've got no test results to judge.


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
ATI VGA Wonder
VGA Wonder

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 1194 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 17 votes

Rate VGA Wonder 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.