AMD Radeon R7 240 vs AMD Radeon HD 6550D
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R7 240 and AMD Radeon HD 6550D 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
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 3 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 32 nm
- 2.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 898 vs 401
- 2.1x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 272 vs 131
- 4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5251 vs 1328
- Around 22% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1688 vs 1382
- Around 19% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2342 vs 1975
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 vs 3324
- Around 22% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1688 vs 1382
- Around 19% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2342 vs 1975
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 vs 3324
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 8 October 2013 vs 30 June 2011 |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 32 nm |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 898 vs 401 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 272 vs 131 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5251 vs 1328 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1688 vs 1382 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2342 vs 1975 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 vs 3324 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1688 vs 1382 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2342 vs 1975 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 vs 3324 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 6550D
- Around 25% higher pipelines: 400 vs 320
Pipelines | 400 vs 320 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 240
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 6550D
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 R7 240 | AMD Radeon HD 6550D |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 898 | 401 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 272 | 131 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5251 | 1328 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.344 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 290.632 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.262 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.59 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 60.326 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1688 | 1382 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2342 | 1975 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 | 3324 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1688 | 1382 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2342 | 1975 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 | 3324 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon R7 240 | AMD Radeon HD 6550D | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Terascale 2 |
Code name | Oland | Llano |
Design | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
Launch date | 8 October 2013 | 30 June 2011 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $69 | |
Place in performance rating | 1245 | 1247 |
Price now | $49.99 | |
Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Value for money (0-100) | 24.92 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 780 MHz | |
Floating-point performance | 499.2 gflops | |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 32 nm |
Pipelines | 320 | 400 |
Stream Processors | 320 | |
Texture fill rate | 15.6 GTexel / s | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | |
Transistor count | 1,040 million | 1000 Million |
Core clock speed | 600 MHz | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | |
DisplayPort support | ||
Dual-link DVI support | ||
HDMI | ||
VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | |
Length | 168 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | N / A | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 | 11 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | |
Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | |
Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | |
Memory type | DDR3 | |
Shared memory | 1 | |
Technologies |
||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
FreeSync |