AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA GeForce 210
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R7 240 and NVIDIA GeForce 210 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 3 year(s) 11 month(s) later
- 3.8x more texture fill rate: 15.6 GTexel / s vs 4.16 GTexel / s
- 20x more pipelines: 320 vs 16
- 12.7x better floating-point performance: 499.2 gflops vs 39.36 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 4x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 512 MB
- 2.3x more memory clock speed: 1150 MHz vs 500 MHz
- 7.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 902 vs 126
- 9.1x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 274 vs 30
- 2.2x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5331 vs 2438
- 4.7x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2342 vs 497
- 4.9x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 vs 688
- 4.7x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2342 vs 497
- 4.9x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 vs 688
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 8 October 2013 vs 12 October 2009 |
| Texture fill rate | 15.6 GTexel / s vs 4.16 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 320 vs 16 |
| Floating-point performance | 499.2 gflops vs 39.36 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz vs 500 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 902 vs 126 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 274 vs 30 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5331 vs 2438 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2342 vs 497 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 vs 688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2342 vs 497 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 vs 688 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 210
- Around 61% lower typical power consumption: 30.5 Watt vs 50 Watt
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30.5 Watt vs 50 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 240
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 210
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| 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 R7 240 | NVIDIA GeForce 210 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 902 | 126 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 274 | 30 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5331 | 2438 |
| 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 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2342 | 497 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 | 688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1688 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2342 | 497 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 | 688 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R7 240 | NVIDIA GeForce 210 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | Oland | GT218 |
| Design | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Launch date | 8 October 2013 | 12 October 2009 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $69 | $29.49 |
| Place in performance rating | 1236 | 1674 |
| Price now | $49.99 | $32.99 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 24.92 | 6.81 |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 780 MHz | |
| Floating-point performance | 499.2 gflops | 39.36 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 320 | 16 |
| Stream Processors | 320 | |
| Texture fill rate | 15.6 GTexel / s | 4.16 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 30.5 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,040 million | 260 million |
| Core clock speed | 1402 MHz | |
| CUDA cores | 16 | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, 1x VGA, DVIVGADisplayPort |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 6.60" (16.8 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | N / A | None |
| Height | 2.731" (6.9 cm) | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 10.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.1 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 8.0 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR2 |
Technologies |
||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| CUDA | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon R7 240 with others
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 4250 IGP
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6370M
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6550D
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 840M
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
IntelUHD Graphics 630
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
IntelUHD Graphics 617
