AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM vs AMD Radeon HD 8550G
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM and AMD Radeon HD 8550G videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM
- Videocard is newer: launch date 7 month(s) later
- Around 42% higher core clock speed: 730 MHz vs 515 MHz
- Around 8% higher boost clock speed: 780 MHz vs 720 MHz
- Around 25% higher pipelines: 320 vs 256
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 32 nm
- Around 34% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 546 vs 407
- Around 66% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 194 vs 117
- 4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4947 vs 1234
- Around 49% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1119 vs 753
- Around 49% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1119 vs 753
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 1 November 2013 vs 12 March 2013 |
Core clock speed | 730 MHz vs 515 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 780 MHz vs 720 MHz |
Pipelines | 320 vs 256 |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 32 nm |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 546 vs 407 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 vs 117 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4947 vs 1234 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1119 vs 753 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1119 vs 753 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 8550G
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1397 vs 1284
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2459 vs 2264
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1397 vs 1284
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2459 vs 2264
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1397 vs 1284 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2459 vs 2264 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1397 vs 1284 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2459 vs 2264 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 8550G
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM | AMD Radeon HD 8550G |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 546 | 407 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 | 117 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4947 | 1234 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.569 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 162.886 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.009 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.668 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 77.819 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1119 | 753 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1284 | 1397 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2264 | 2459 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1119 | 753 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1284 | 1397 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2264 | 2459 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM | AMD Radeon HD 8550G | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Terascale 3 |
Code name | Oland | Richland |
Launch date | 1 November 2013 | 12 March 2013 |
Place in performance rating | 1411 | 1413 |
Type | Desktop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 780 MHz | 720 MHz |
Core clock speed | 730 MHz | 515 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 499.2 gflops | |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 32 nm |
Pipelines | 320 | 256 |
Texture fill rate | 15.6 GTexel / s | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | |
Transistor count | 1,040 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | |
Length | 168 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
Laptop size | medium sized | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 11 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | |
Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB / s | |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | |
Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | |
Memory type | DDR3 | |
Shared memory | 1 |