Radeon R7 240 vs RX Vega 56

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 56 and Radeon R7 240, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RX Vega 56
2017
8 GB HBM2, 210 Watt
34.33
+1367%

RX Vega 56 outperforms R7 240 by a whopping 1367% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking141811
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation26.610.16
ArchitectureVega (2017−2021)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameVegaOland
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date14 August 2017 (6 years ago)8 October 2013 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $69
Current price$224 (0.6x MSRP)$109 (1.6x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX Vega 56 has 16531% better value for money than R7 240.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores3584320
Core clock speed1138 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1474 MHz780 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million950 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate329.514.00
Floating-point performance10,566 gflops499.2 gflops

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 supportno dataPCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length267 mm168 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinN/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 typeHBM2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB2 GB
Memory bus width409.6 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1150 MHz
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/s72 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI++
DisplayPort supportno data-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAccelerationno data-
CrossFireno data1
Endurono data-
FreeSyncno data1
HD3Dno data-
PowerTuneno data-
TrueAudiono data-
ZeroCoreno data-
DDMA audiono data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)DirectX® 12
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.1.125no data
Mantleno data-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 Vega 56 34.33
+1367%
R7 240 2.34

RX Vega 56 outperforms R7 240 by 1367% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

RX Vega 56 13258
+1368%
R7 240 903

RX Vega 56 outperforms R7 240 by 1368% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

RX Vega 56 20759
+1602%
R7 240 1220

RX Vega 56 outperforms R7 240 by 1602% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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 HD115
+1543%
7−8
−1543%
1440p70
+1650%
4−5
−1650%
4K51
+1600%
3−4
−1600%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+1375%
4−5
−1375%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 77
+1440%
5−6
−1440%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 60−65
+1400%
4−5
−1400%
Battlefield 5 164
+1540%
10−11
−1540%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70−75
+1650%
4−5
−1650%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+1375%
4−5
−1375%
Far Cry 5 115
+1543%
7−8
−1543%
Far Cry New Dawn 114
+1529%
7−8
−1529%
Forza Horizon 4 141
+1467%
9−10
−1467%
Hitman 3 70−75
+1675%
4−5
−1675%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
+1433%
9−10
−1433%
Metro Exodus 144
+1500%
9−10
−1500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 85−90
+1620%
5−6
−1620%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 120−130
+1513%
8−9
−1513%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+1660%
5−6
−1660%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 70
+1650%
4−5
−1650%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 60−65
+1400%
4−5
−1400%
Battlefield 5 153
+1430%
10−11
−1430%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70−75
+1650%
4−5
−1650%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+1375%
4−5
−1375%
Far Cry 5 92
+1433%
6−7
−1433%
Far Cry New Dawn 88
+1660%
5−6
−1660%
Forza Horizon 4 272
+1411%
18−20
−1411%
Hitman 3 70−75
+1675%
4−5
−1675%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
+1433%
9−10
−1433%
Metro Exodus 106
+1414%
7−8
−1414%
Red Dead Redemption 2 85−90
+1620%
5−6
−1620%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 120−130
+1513%
8−9
−1513%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 124
+1450%
8−9
−1450%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+1660%
5−6
−1660%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 52
+1633%
3−4
−1633%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 60−65
+1400%
4−5
−1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70−75
+1650%
4−5
−1650%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+1375%
4−5
−1375%
Far Cry 5 69
+1625%
4−5
−1625%
Forza Horizon 4 109
+1457%
7−8
−1457%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
+1433%
9−10
−1433%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 120−130
+1513%
8−9
−1513%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 74
+1380%
5−6
−1380%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+1660%
5−6
−1660%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 85−90
+1620%
5−6
−1620%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 98
+1533%
6−7
−1533%
Far Cry New Dawn 84
+1580%
5−6
−1580%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 44
+2100%
2−3
−2100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+1750%
2−3
−1750%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+1600%
3−4
−1600%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Far Cry 5 74
+1380%
5−6
−1380%
Forza Horizon 4 88
+1660%
5−6
−1660%
Hitman 3 40−45
+2050%
2−3
−2050%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+1725%
4−5
−1725%
Metro Exodus 74
+1380%
5−6
−1380%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+1520%
5−6
−1520%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+1467%
3−4
−1467%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+2800%
1−2
−2800%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+1375%
4−5
−1375%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 46
+1433%
3−4
−1433%
Far Cry New Dawn 32
+1500%
2−3
−1500%
Hitman 3 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 31
+1450%
2−3
−1450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
+2100%
2−3
−2100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27
+2600%
1−2
−2600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 0−1
Far Cry 5 23
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Forza Horizon 4 59
+1375%
4−5
−1375%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%
Metro Exodus 42
+2000%
2−3
−2000%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+1400%
2−3
−1400%

This is how RX Vega 56 and R7 240 compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega 56 is 1543% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega 56 is 1650% faster in 1440p
  • RX Vega 56 is 1600% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 34.33 2.34
Recency 14 August 2017 8 October 2013
Cost $399 $69
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 50 Watt

The Radeon RX Vega 56 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.

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 RX Vega 56
Radeon RX Vega 56
AMD Radeon R7 240
Radeon R7 240

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.


4.3 703 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 1088 votes

Rate Radeon R7 240 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.