AMD Radeon HD 7730M vs AMD Radeon R5 M240 Comparison

AMD Radeon R5 M240 and AMD Radeon HD 7730M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture, yet they target different performance tiers. The single available Geekbench OpenCL benchmark shows the R5 M240 scoring 6975, which is 6% higher than the HD 7730M’s 6581. This places the R5 M240 in the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the HD 7730M sits just one point lower at the 38th percentile. Both chips are effectively neck-and-neck in the broader GPU landscape, but the architectural and specification differences explain why the newer part edges ahead despite having fewer resources on paper.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon R5 M240 is the faster GPU in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6975 beats the HD 7730M’s 6581 by 6%, and it also holds a slight edge over the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946, deltaPct 0.4%) while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7023, deltaPct -0.7%) by less than a percentage point. The HD 7730M, by contrast, sits within 1% of the Intel UHD Graphics P750 (6554, deltaPct 0.4%) and the AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6612, deltaPct -0.5%), making it a mid-pack performer in its immediate peer group. For users who prioritize compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, the R5 M240 is the clear pick based on this data. However, the HD 7730M offers double the memory (2 GB vs 1024 MB) and a wider 128-bit memory bus, which could matter for certain workloads that are memory-capacity sensitive, even though the benchmark does not isolate that factor. Strictly from the numbers, the R5 M240 wins the only head-to-head test, so it is the recommended choice for general compute performance. The HD 7730M is not without merit — its higher pixel rate and texture rate suggest it could handle fill-rate-bound tasks better — but the benchmark evidence favors the R5 M240.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are manufactured on TSMC’s 28 nm process and use AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, so the fundamental instruction set and feature support are identical. The R5 M240 uses the Jet chip, which is a smaller die at 56 mm² with 690 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The HD 7730M uses the Chelsea chip, which is more than twice the physical size at 123 mm² and packs 1,500 million transistors, yielding a slightly lower density of 12.2M per mm². This die size difference is significant: Chelsea has roughly 2.2 times the transistor count of Jet, yet the R5 M240 still outperforms it in the benchmark. The R5 M240 belongs to the Gem System (R5 M200) generation and was released in 2014, while the HD 7730M is part of the London (HD 7700M) generation from 2012. The predecessor/successor chain shows the HD 7730M’s successor is the Solar System, which precedes the R5 M200 series, indicating a generational gap. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, so API-level features are not a differentiator. The R5 M240 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, whereas the HD 7730M uses PCIe 2.0 x16 — the newer interface standard on the R5 M240 may offer better bandwidth efficiency despite having fewer lanes. Neither chip has ray tracing or tensor cores, and both lack FP16 support, so the compute story is purely FP32-based.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the R5 M240 wins decisively. It scores 6975 against the HD 7730M’s 6581, a delta of 6%. This is a meaningful gap in a compute-oriented test that exercises the GPU’s shading units and memory subsystem. The R5 M240 achieves this with 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, while the HD 7730M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. So the HD 7730M has 60% more shading units, 60% more TMUs, and double the ROPs, yet it still loses. The reason appears to be clock speed: the R5 M240 runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1030 MHz, while the HD 7730M is limited to 575 MHz base and 675 MHz boost. That is a 74% higher base clock and a 53% higher boost clock for the R5 M240. In FP32 compute, the R5 M240 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS for the HD 7730M — the HD 7730M is actually 4.8% higher in raw theoretical FP32, but the real-world OpenCL score flips the result. This suggests the R5 M240’s higher clocks and newer memory pipeline compensate for its smaller core count. Interestingly, the HD 7730M has a higher pixel rate (10.80 GPixel/s vs 8.240 GPixel/s) and a slightly higher texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s), so in fill-rate-bound scenarios the HD 7730M would likely win, but the benchmark does not test that. The R5 M240’s nearest rivals include the GTX 675M (6946, deltaPct 0.4%) and GTX 680M (7023, deltaPct -0.7%), meaning it is within 1% of those high-end mobile NVIDIA parts. The HD 7730M’s closest competitor is the Intel UHD Graphics P750 (6554, deltaPct 0.4%), which shows how much lower its performance tier is.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975, which is 6% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 7730M’s 6581.

Q: Does the HD 7730M have more shading units, and does it matter?

A: Yes, the HD 7730M has 512 shading units versus 320 for the R5 M240, which is 60% more. However, the R5 M240 still wins the OpenCL benchmark, likely due to its much higher clock speeds (1000 MHz base vs 575 MHz base).

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The R5 M240 has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The HD 7730M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s bandwidth — exactly double the capacity and bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same architecture generation?

A: Both use GCN 1.0 architecture and are built on a 28 nm TSMC process, but they are from different generations: the R5 M240 is from Gem System (R5 M200), released in 2014, while the HD 7730M is from London (HD 7700M), released in 2012.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to NVIDIA rivals?

A: The R5 M240 is within 0.4% of the GTX 675M (6946) and 0.7% below the GTX 680M (7023). The HD 7730M is 1% above the GTX 670M (6513) and 1.4% above the GT 555M (6493).

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The HD 7730M’s Chelsea chip has 1,500 million transistors, while the R5 M240’s Jet chip has 690 million, making the HD 7730M about 2.2 times larger in transistor count.

Where Each One Wins

The R5 M240 wins the compute benchmark outright, so for OpenCL-based workloads — such as general-purpose GPU computing, media encoding, or physics simulations — the data clearly favors it. Its higher clock speeds (1000 MHz base vs 575 MHz) and better per-clock efficiency in the tested workload give it a 6% performance advantage. The R5 M240 also benefits from a newer PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, which may improve data transfer rates compared to the HD 7730M’s PCIe 2.0 x16. In terms of benchmark percentile, the R5 M240 sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the HD 7730M is at the 38th — a marginal difference, but the R5 M240 is consistently ahead in the data. The HD 7730M wins on paper in raw specifications that favor fill-rate-limited scenarios: it has double the ROPs (16 vs 8) and a higher pixel rate (10.80 GPixel/s vs 8.240 GPixel/s), meaning it could outperform the R5 M240 in tasks like heavy rasterization or certain DirectX 11_1 rendering paths. Its texture rate is also slightly higher (21.60 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s), and with 2 GB of VRAM versus 1 GB, it can hold larger textures or datasets in memory without spilling to system RAM. The HD 7730M’s 128-bit memory bus provides 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, exactly double the R5 M240’s 14.40 GB/s, which is a substantial advantage for memory-bound operations. In practice, this means the HD 7730M could be the better choice for older games at lower resolutions where fill rate and memory bandwidth matter more than raw FP32 compute, or for applications that need more than 1 GB of VRAM. However, no benchmark data in the pack supports this, so these are inference-based advantages rather than measured wins.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification except for architecture, process node, foundry, and API support. The R5 M240 uses the Jet chip with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, while the HD 7730M uses the Chelsea chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. Clock speeds are dramatically different: the R5 M240 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1030 MHz, versus 575 MHz base and 675 MHz boost for the HD 7730M. Memory configurations also diverge: the R5 M240 has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the HD 7730M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, whereas the HD 7730M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 8.240 GPixel/s for the R5 M240 versus 10.80 GPixel/s for the HD 7730M, and texture rate is 20.60 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M240 and 691.2 GFLOPS for the HD 7730M. The R5 M240 lists no TDP, while the HD 7730M is rated at 25 W. Bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 on the R5 M240 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 on the HD 7730M. The HD 7730M lists display outputs as “Portable Device Dependent,” while the R5 M240 has no display output data. Release dates are 2014-09-17 for the R5 M240 and 2012-04-23 for the HD 7730M. The HD 7730M’s predecessor is Vancouver and its successor is Solar System, which precedes the R5 M200 series; the R5 M240’s predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. Neither GPU has a launch MSRP listed.