Radeon R5 A240 vs R7 350
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 350 and Radeon R5 A240, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 350 outperforms R5 A240 by a whopping 274% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 597 | 972 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 7.03 | 2.06 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | Oland |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 July 2016 (8 years ago) | 2014 (10 years ago) |
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 | 512 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 1030 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 780 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.60 | 15.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8192 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 20 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 168 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 1800 MBps |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 28.8 GB/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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | + | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 (1.2) |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.170 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.58 | 1.49 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 50 Watt |
R7 350 has a 274.5% higher aggregate performance score.
R5 A240, on the other hand, has 10% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 A240 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
