Intel UHD Graphics 630 vs AMD Radeon R7 240
Comparative analysis of Intel UHD Graphics 630 and AMD Radeon R7 240 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 Intel UHD Graphics 630
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- Around 54% higher boost clock speed: 1200 MHz vs 780 MHz
- Around 85% higher texture fill rate: 28.8 GTexel / s vs 15.6 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 3.3x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 50 Watt
- Around 37% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1237 vs 902
- Around 9% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 299 vs 274
- 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 27.517 vs 13.344
- Around 22% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 354.254 vs 290.632
- Around 43% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.807 vs 1.262
- Around 11% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1870 vs 1688
- Around 11% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1870 vs 1688
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 1 September 2017 vs 8 October 2013 |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz vs 780 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 28.8 GTexel / s vs 15.6 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 50 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1237 vs 902 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 299 vs 274 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.517 vs 13.344 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 354.254 vs 290.632 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.807 vs 1.262 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1870 vs 1688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1870 vs 1688 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 240
- 13.3x more pipelines: 320 vs 24
- Around 8% better floating-point performance: 499.2 gflops vs 460.8 gflops
- Around 14% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5331 vs 4657
- Around 6% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.59 vs 20.323
- 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 60.326 vs 29.327
- Around 47% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2342 vs 1596
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 vs 3309
- Around 47% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2342 vs 1596
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 vs 3309
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Pipelines | 320 vs 24 |
| Floating-point performance | 499.2 gflops vs 460.8 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5331 vs 4657 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.59 vs 20.323 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 60.326 vs 29.327 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2342 vs 1596 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 vs 3309 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2342 vs 1596 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 vs 3309 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 630
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 240
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | AMD Radeon R7 240 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1237 | 902 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 299 | 274 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4657 | 5331 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.517 | 13.344 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 354.254 | 290.632 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.807 | 1.262 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 20.323 | 21.59 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 29.327 | 60.326 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1870 | 1688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1596 | 2342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3309 | 3353 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1870 | 1688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1596 | 2342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3309 | 3353 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 68 | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel UHD Graphics 630 | AMD Radeon R7 240 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | GCN 1.0 |
| Code name | Coffee Lake GT2 | Oland |
| Launch date | 1 September 2017 | 8 October 2013 |
| Place in performance rating | 1234 | 1236 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $69 | |
| Price now | $49.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 24.92 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | 780 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | |
| Floating-point performance | 460.8 gflops | 499.2 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 24 | 320 |
| Texture fill rate | 28.8 GTexel / s | 15.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Transistor count | 189 million | 1,040 million |
| Stream Processors | 320 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Length | 168 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | N / A | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Memory |
||
| Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Shared memory | 1 | |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | |
| Memory type | DDR3 | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||

