AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM vs NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM and NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. 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 5 year(s) 3 month(s) later
- 3.5x more texture fill rate: 15.6 GTexel / s vs 4.4 billion / sec
- 20x more pipelines: 320 vs 16
- 17x better floating-point performance: 499.2 gflops vs 29.376 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 80 nm
- 4x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 512 MB
- 4.5x more memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 400 MHz
- 3.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 548 vs 169
- 5.1x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 194 vs 38
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2264 vs 1016
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2264 vs 1016
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 1 November 2013 vs 1 August 2008 |
| Texture fill rate | 15.6 GTexel / s vs 4.4 billion / sec |
| Pipelines | 320 vs 16 |
| Floating-point performance | 499.2 gflops vs 29.376 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 80 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 400 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 548 vs 169 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 vs 38 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2264 vs 1016 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2264 vs 1016 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT
- Around 92% higher core clock speed: 1400 MHz vs 730 MHz
- Around 40% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1796 vs 1284
- Around 40% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1796 vs 1284
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1400 MHz vs 730 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1796 vs 1284 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1796 vs 1284 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM | NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 548 | 169 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 | 38 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4936 | |
| 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 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1284 | 1796 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2264 | 1016 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1119 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1284 | 1796 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2264 | 1016 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM | NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Tesla |
| Code name | Oland | G86 |
| Launch date | 1 November 2013 | 1 August 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 1406 | 1460 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79.99 | |
| Price now | $79.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 3.05 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 780 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 730 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 499.2 gflops | 29.376 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Pipelines | 320 | 16 |
| Texture fill rate | 15.6 GTexel / s | 4.4 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,040 million | 210 million |
| CUDA cores | 16 | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video, Dual Link DVI |
| Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 6.6" (16.8 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB / s | 12.8 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3 | DDR2 |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM with others
AMDRadeon R5 240 OEM vs
NVIDIAQuadro K1000M
AMDRadeon R5 240 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 625 OEM
AMDRadeon R5 240 OEM vs
AMDRadeon HD 8550G
AMDRadeon R5 240 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce 710A
AMDRadeon R5 240 OEM vs
AMDRadeon R7 M265
AMDRadeon R5 240 OEM vs
AMDRadeon R6 Graphics
