AMD Radeon R7 240 OEM vs Intel HD Graphics 4600
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R7 240 OEM and Intel HD Graphics 4600 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 240 OEM
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 month(s) later
- Around 83% higher core clock speed: 730 MHz vs 400 MHz
- 3.1x more texture fill rate: 15.6 GTexel / s vs 5 GTexel / s
- 16x more pipelines: 320 vs 20
- 10x better floating-point performance: 499.2 gflops vs 50 gflops
Launch date | 1 November 2013 vs 3 June 2013 |
Core clock speed | 730 MHz vs 400 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 15.6 GTexel / s vs 5 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 320 vs 20 |
Floating-point performance | 499.2 gflops vs 50 gflops |
Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 4600
- Around 60% higher boost clock speed: 1250 MHz vs 780 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 22 nm vs 28 nm
- Around 11% lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 50 Watt
Boost clock speed | 1250 MHz vs 780 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm vs 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt vs 50 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 240 OEM
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4600
Name | AMD Radeon R7 240 OEM | Intel HD Graphics 4600 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 630 | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 314 | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3210 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.844 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 171.17 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.115 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 10.385 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 12.361 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 988 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1702 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2808 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 988 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1702 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2808 | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 194 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon R7 240 OEM | Intel HD Graphics 4600 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 7.5 |
Code name | Oland | Haswell GT2 |
Launch date | 1 November 2013 | 3 June 2013 |
Place in performance rating | not rated | 1359 |
Type | Desktop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 780 MHz | 1250 MHz |
Core clock speed | 730 MHz | 400 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 499.2 gflops | 50 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 22 nm |
Pipelines | 320 | 20 |
Texture fill rate | 15.6 GTexel / s | 5 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,040 million | 392 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12.0 (11_1) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.3 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | |
Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB / s | |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 / 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | |
Memory type | DDR3 | |
Shared memory | 1 | |
Technologies |
||
Quick Sync |