AMD Radeon 760M vs AMD Radeon R7 240 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two AMD parts into completely different performance tiers. The AMD Radeon 760M wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a commanding 300.1%. That is not a marginal advantage; it is a generational leap expressed in raw compute throughput.

The AMD Radeon R7 240 does not win any recorded benchmark against the 760M. Its sole database entry, Geekbench OpenCL at 5,063 points, places it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs. The 760M sits in the 35th percentile, which sounds close but the average benchmark scores tell a different story: 6,019 for the 760M versus 5,063 for the R7 240. The percentile gap understates the compute gap because the 760M has a much wider benchmark profile, including DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and compute tests, while the R7 240 only has the single OpenCL result.

Where each one wins is therefore not a question of workload type but of product generation. The 760M wins everywhere it is measured. The R7 240 only appears competitive if you look at its percentile rank in isolation, and even then, the recorded data shows it trailing.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The 760M uses the Phoenix chip built on RDNA 3.0 at TSMC's 4 nm process, packing 25,390 million transistors into a 178 mm² die. The R7 240 uses the Oland chip on GCN 1.0 at 28 nm, with 950 million transistors across 77 mm². The transistor density figures capture the gap: 142.6 million transistors per mm² for the 760M versus 12.3 million for the R7 240. That is an 11.6x density advantage for the newer part.

The 760M is an integrated graphics processor, part of the Phoenix APU generation, with no power connectors and a 15 W TDP. The R7 240 is a discrete single-slot card with a 30 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 200 W. Both draw power differently, but the 760M does so far more efficiently per unit of compute.

Feature support diverges sharply. The 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 760M also includes 8 ray tracing cores, which the R7 240 lacks entirely. The 760M's FP16 throughput matches its FP32 at 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1), while the R7 240 has no recorded FP16 capability. The 760M is PCIe 4.0 x8; the R7 240 is PCIe 3.0 x8.

The R7 240 does have one physical advantage: it is a real card with dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s. The 760M uses system shared memory with bandwidth that the database lists as system dependent. For a standalone GPU buyer, the R7 240's dedicated memory is a tangible asset, but the bandwidth ceiling is low compared to what a modern IGP can pull from system memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The 760M scores 20,255; the R7 240 scores 5,063. The delta is 300.1% in favor of the 760M. That is a fourfold improvement in raw OpenCL compute.

Look at the 760M's other scores to understand what that OpenCL result implies. Its Passmark G3D score is 5,310, and its Passmark GPU compute score is 2,840. The R7 240 has no Passmark entries, so we cannot compare those directly, but the OpenCL gap alone is decisive. The 760M's average benchmark score of 6,019 puts it within 0.5% of the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6,049) and 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6,001). The R7 240's average of 5,063 sits at parity with the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5,063) and just 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4170M (5,034).

The 760M also shows a broad API workload spread in its Passmark results: DirectX 9 at 65, DirectX 10 at 19, DirectX 11 at 52, DirectX 12 at 25, G2D at 890, G3D at 5,310, and compute at 2,840. The R7 240 has no such breadth in the database. This means the 760M is not just faster in a single test; it is a more complete product with measurable results across legacy and modern APIs.

Specification Differences

The differences in specification are extensive. The 760M uses a 4 nm process; the R7 240 uses 28 nm. The 760M has 25,390 million transistors; the R7 240 has 950 million. The die sizes are 178 mm² and 77 mm² respectively. Base clocks differ: 800 MHz for the 760M versus 730 MHz for the R7 240. Boost clocks are 2,599 MHz versus 780 MHz.

The 760M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The 760M has 8 ray tracing cores; the R7 240 has none. Pixel rates are 41.58 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 83.17 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 5.323 TFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS.

Memory configurations are not directly comparable. The 760M uses system shared memory with no dedicated size, type, or bus width. The R7 240 has 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The 760M has no power connectors and a 15 W TDP; the R7 240 has no power connectors but a 30 W TDP and a 200 W suggested PSU.

The R7 240 is a physical card: 168 mm long, 69 mm high, single-slot, with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA outputs. The 760M is an IGP with motherboard-dependent display outputs. The R7 240 is end-of-life and launched with a 69 USD MSRP; the 760M is active and has no recorded launch MSRP. The R7 240's memory clock is 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective; the 760M's memory clock is listed as system shared.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS FP32, while the R7 240 delivers 499.2 GFLOPS. That is roughly a 10.7x difference in raw FP32 capability.

Q: Does the R7 240 support ray tracing?

A: No. The R7 240 has no ray tracing cores. The 760M includes 8 ray tracing cores.

Q: How do their DirectX versions compare?

A: The 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The 760M also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.2.170 on the R7 240.

Q: What is the performance gap in the only shared benchmark?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the 760M scores 20,255 against 5,063 for the R7 240, a 300.1% advantage for the 760M.

Q: Which card has dedicated memory?

A: The R7 240 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus. The 760M uses system shared memory with bandwidth dependent on the system.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. The 760M is listed as active. The R7 240 is end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon 760M is the superior product in every measured dimension. Its average benchmark score of 6,019 is 18.9% higher than the R7 240's 5,063. Its OpenCL result is four times higher. Its architecture is three generations newer, its process node is dramatically smaller, and its feature set includes ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate support that the R7 240 simply cannot offer.

The R7 240's only advantages are physical: it is a discrete card with dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory and its own display outputs. For a system that cannot rely on an IGP or needs a standalone low-profile card, the R7 240 remains a functional if dated option. Its 30 W TDP and single-slot design are modest, and its 2013-era GCN 1.0 architecture is end-of-life. The 69 USD launch MSRP is historical context, not a current buying signal.

The 760M, by contrast, is an active product with a 15 W TDP, no power connectors, and performance that sits within 0.5% of a Quadro P2000 and 0.3% of an RX 6400 in the database's average scoring. Buyers who can use an integrated GPU should choose the 760M without hesitation. Buyers who require a standalone card with dedicated memory should note that the R7 240 is the only one of the two that qualifies, but the performance gap in every recorded benchmark makes it hard to recommend for anything beyond basic display output or legacy workloads.