Radeon R7 240 vs RX 580

Place in the ranking	246	854
Place by popularity	1	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	18.05	0.16
Power efficiency	8.58	5.36
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	Polaris 20	Oland
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	18 April 2017 (7 years ago)	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$229	$69

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 580 has 11181% better value for money than R7 240.

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	2304	320
Core clock speed	1257 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1340 MHz	780 MHz
Number of transistors	5,700 million	950 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	185 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	193.0	14.00
Floating-point processing power	6.175 TFLOPS	0.448 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	144	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).

Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	241 mm	168 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	N/A

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	2000 MHz	1150 MHz
Memory bandwidth	256.0 GB/s	72 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 HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x 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.

DirectX	12 (12_0)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	-

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.

RX 580 23.02
+888%

R7 240 2.33

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.

RX 580 8847
+887%

R7 240 896

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.

RX 580 13927
+1042%

R7 240 1220

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	96 +967%	9−10 −967%
1440p	44 +1000%	4−5 −1000%
4K	38 +1167%	3−4 −1167%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.39 +221%	7.67 −221%
1440p	5.20 +231%	17.25 −231%
4K	6.03 +282%	23.00 −282%

RX 580 has 221% lower cost per frame in 1080p
RX 580 has 231% lower cost per frame in 1440p
RX 580 has 282% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +950%	4−5 −950%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +1050%	4−5 −1050%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	80 +900%	8−9 −900%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +950%	4−5 −950%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +1050%	4−5 −1050%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +890%	10−11 −890%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +917%	6−7 −917%
Metro Exodus	83 +938%	8−9 −938%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +920%	5−6 −920%
Valorant	90−95 +933%	9−10 −933%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	117 +1070%	10−11 −1070%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +950%	4−5 −950%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +1050%	4−5 −1050%
Dota 2	51 +920%	5−6 −920%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +943%	7−8 −943%
Fortnite	110−120 +1080%	10−11 −1080%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +890%	10−11 −890%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +917%	6−7 −917%
Grand Theft Auto V	77 +1000%	7−8 −1000%
Metro Exodus	57 +1040%	5−6 −1040%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	202 +1022%	18−20 −1022%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +920%	5−6 −920%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 +957%	7−8 −957%
Valorant	90−95 +933%	9−10 −933%
World of Tanks	240−250 +938%	24−27 −938%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	68 +1033%	6−7 −1033%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +950%	4−5 −950%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +1050%	4−5 −1050%
Dota 2	80−85 +900%	8−9 −900%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +943%	7−8 −943%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +890%	10−11 −890%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +917%	6−7 −917%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70 +900%	7−8 −900%
Valorant	90−95 +933%	9−10 −933%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	35−40 +1167%	3−4 −1167%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +1167%	3−4 −1167%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +988%	16−18 −988%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
World of Tanks	150−160 +1000%	14−16 −1000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +1075%	4−5 −1075%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +933%	3−4 −933%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +983%	6−7 −983%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +917%	6−7 −917%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +1133%	3−4 −1133%
Metro Exodus	53 +960%	5−6 −960%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +1000%	3−4 −1000%
Valorant	60−65 +917%	6−7 −917%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Dota 2	57 +1040%	5−6 −1040%
Grand Theft Auto V	57 +1040%	5−6 −1040%
Metro Exodus	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	73 +943%	7−8 −943%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	57 +1040%	5−6 −1040%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	28 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8	0−1
Dota 2	40−45 +900%	4−5 −900%
Far Cry 5	30−33 +900%	3−4 −900%
Fortnite	31 +933%	3−4 −933%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +1067%	3−4 −1067%
Forza Horizon 5	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Valorant	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%

This is how RX 580 and R7 240 compete in popular games:

RX 580 is 967% faster in 1080p
RX 580 is 1000% faster in 1440p
RX 580 is 1167% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	23.02	2.33
Recency	18 April 2017	8 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	185 Watt	50 Watt

RX 580 has a 888% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

R7 240, on the other hand, has 270% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 580 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.