Radeon R5 A240 vs R7 M370
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 M370 with Radeon R5 A240, including specs and performance data.
R7 M370 outperforms R5 A240 by a whopping 147% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 763 | 1026 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.09 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Litho | Oland |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (10 years ago) | 2014 (11 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 | 384 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 1030 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 960 MHz | 780 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 23.04 | 15.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7373 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1800 MBps |
| Memory bandwidth | 73.6 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 2.1 (1.2) |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.170 |
| 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.
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.
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 HD | 14
+180%
| 5−6
−180%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| God of War | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| God of War | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+163%
|
24−27
−163%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| God of War | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| God of War | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+160%
|
10−11
−160%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| God of War | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| God of War | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
This is how R7 M370 and R5 A240 compete in popular games:
- R7 M370 is 180% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.38 | 1.37 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
R7 M370 has a 146.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Radeon R7 M370 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 A240 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 M370 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon R5 A240 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
