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 38% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1239 vs 897
• Around 10% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 300 vs 272
• 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

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 12% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5212 vs 4653
• 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

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 630
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 240

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1239 897
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	300 272
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	4653 5212
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	27.517 13.344
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	354.254 290.632
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.807 1.262
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	20.323 21.59
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	29.327 60.326
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1870 1688
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1596 2342
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3309 3353
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1870 1688
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1596 2342
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3309 3353

Compare specifications (specs)