AMD Radeon HD 8730M vs AMD Radeon R5 M240 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark in the database for both GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975, while the AMD Radeon HD 8730M scores 5955. This gives the R5 M240 a decisive 17.1% lead. The R5 M240 wins the sole head-to-head comparison, and the database records 1 win for it and 0 for the HD 8730M.

That 17.1% delta is substantial for two mobile GPUs from the same manufacturer and generation family. The R5 M240 outperforms the HD 8730M by a clear margin, and the gap is consistent with the underlying specifications. The R5 M240 is also positioned higher in the overall GPU hierarchy: it sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the HD 8730M sits at the 34th percentile. That five-point percentile difference may not sound like much, but it places the R5 M240 in a different performance tier.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card helps contextualize the scores. The R5 M240 is bracketed by NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (score 6946, delta 0.4% relative to the R5 M240) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (score 7023, delta -0.7%). The R5 M240 is essentially neck-and-neck with the GTX 675M, just 0.4% ahead, and trails the GTX 680M by only 0.7%. It also sits 2.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro M5100 (score 6830). For a low-end mobile part, being within 1% of two GTX-class discrete GPUs is remarkable.

The HD 8730M, by contrast, is grouped with much weaker competition. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (score 5957, delta 0%), meaning the two are statistically identical. The AMD Radeon HD 8750M (score 5970) is 0.3% ahead, the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (score 5929) is 0.4% behind, and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (score 5982) is 0.5% ahead. All four rivals sit within a 53-point band, which means the HD 8730M is firmly in the lower-midrange of mobile graphics. It is not competitive with the GTX-class parts that surround the R5 M240.

The 17.1% gap between the two AMD cards is far larger than the differences seen among their nearest rivals. In other words, the R5 M240 is not just slightly better; it is in a different performance class. The Geekbench OpenCL workload stresses compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and shader execution, and the R5 M240 comes out ahead on all measurable fronts.

Where Each One Wins

The R5 M240 wins the only benchmark in the database, so it is the clear choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL compute. This includes GPU-accelerated applications like video encoding, image processing, physics simulations, and some machine learning inference tasks. The R5 M240's 17.1% advantage translates to noticeably faster completion times in these workloads. Given its 39th percentile ranking, it can handle light to moderate compute tasks without being the bottleneck.

The R5 M240 also has a higher pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s versus 5.600 GPixel/s for the HD 8730M) and a higher texture rate (20.60 GTexel/s versus 16.80 GTexel/s). These metrics matter for rasterization-heavy tasks, such as older games or 2D/3D CAD viewport rendering. The R5 M240 will fill triangles and sample textures faster, leading to smoother frame rates in geometry-bound scenarios.

The HD 8730M, despite losing the compute benchmark, has its own advantages. It offers 2 GB of VRAM versus 1 GB on the R5 M240. For workloads that exceed 1 GB of video memory, such as larger textures or multi-monitor setups with high resolutions, the HD 8730M will not hit a memory capacity wall as quickly. Its memory bus is also twice as wide (128-bit versus 64-bit), giving it a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s compared to 14.40 GB/s on the R5 M240. In memory-bandwidth-bound tasks that fit within 1 GB, the HD 8730M could potentially close the gap, though the database does not include a benchmark that isolates this scenario.

The HD 8730M also has more shading units (384 versus 320) and more texture mapping units (24 versus 20). In theory, this gives it more raw parallel execution resources. However, its much lower clock speeds (650 MHz base and 700 MHz boost versus 1000 MHz and 1030 MHz on the R5 M240) negate that advantage in practice. The R5 M240's 0.4% lead over the GTX 675M and 2.1% lead over the FirePro M5100 suggest it is the better all-around compute part.

For users who only need basic display output and light 2D acceleration, either card suffices. But for any measurable performance, the R5 M240 is the winner. The HD 8730M is best suited for scenarios where memory capacity and bandwidth matter more than raw compute, and where the workload is light enough that the clock speed deficit does not dominate.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975, which is 17.1% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 8730M's score of 5955.

Q: How does the R5 M240 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The R5 M240 is 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (score 6946), 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (score 7023), 0.8% behind the NVIDIA T600 (score 7035), and 2.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro M5100 (score 6830).

Q: How does the HD 8730M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The HD 8730M is statistically tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (score 5957, 0% delta), 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (score 5970), 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (score 5929), and 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (score 5982).

Q: Does the HD 8730M have any advantage over the R5 M240?

A: Yes, the HD 8730M has 2 GB of memory versus 1 GB, a 128-bit bus versus 64-bit, and higher bandwidth (28.80 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s). It also has more shading units (384 versus 320) and more TMUs (24 versus 20), but lower clocks.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The R5 M240 is at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the HD 8730M is at the 34th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The R5 M240 has a pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s, compared to 5.600 GPixel/s for the HD 8730M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specifications. The R5 M240 uses the Jet chip, while the HD 8730M uses the Mars chip. The R5 M240 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, while the HD 8730M has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and both have a transistor density of 12.3M / mm².

Clock speeds differ significantly. The R5 M240 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost, while the HD 8730M runs at 650 MHz base and 700 MHz boost. Memory clocks are identical at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), but the memory configuration differs: the R5 M240 has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus (14.40 GB/s bandwidth), while the HD 8730M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus (28.80 GB/s bandwidth).

Compute resources differ as well. The R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The HD 8730M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite having fewer shaders, the R5 M240 achieves higher throughput: its pixel rate is 8.240 GPixel/s versus 5.600 GPixel/s, its texture rate is 20.60 GTexel/s versus 16.80 GTexel/s, and its FP32 performance is 659.2 GFLOPS versus 537.6 GFLOPS.

Both cards use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has a recorded TDP, slot width, power connector, or display output list. Both are marked as end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are based on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, which means they share the same fundamental instruction set and compute capabilities. They are also both manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The architectural differences come down to the chip design and resource allocation.

The R5 M240 uses the Jet chip, which is a smaller, lower-power design. It has fewer transistors (690 million versus 950 million) and a smaller die (56 mm² versus 77 mm²). This suggests the Jet chip is optimized for lower power consumption and smaller form factors, which is typical for entry-level mobile GPUs. The R5 M240 is part of the Gem System generation (R5 M200 series), which is the successor to the Solar System generation that the HD 8730M belongs to.

The HD 8730M uses the Mars chip, which is a larger design with more transistors and a bigger die. It belongs to the Solar System generation (HD 8700M series), which predates the Gem System. The Mars chip packs more shading units (384 versus 320) and more TMUs (24 versus 20), but those extra resources are crippled by much lower clock speeds. The R5 M240 compensates for its fewer cores with a 54% higher base clock (1000 MHz versus 650 MHz) and a 47% higher boost clock (1030 MHz versus 700 MHz).

The memory architecture differs substantially. The HD 8730M has a 128-bit memory bus, which is double the width of the R5 M240's 64-bit bus. This gives the HD 8730M exactly double the memory bandwidth (28.80 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) despite identical memory clocks. The HD 8730M also has twice the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1 GB). These differences suggest the HD 8730M was designed to handle larger textures and more complex scenes, while the R5 M240 relies on higher shader clocks to push through compute workloads.

Both chips support the same API set: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has any ray tracing or tensor cores, as those features did not exist in GCN 1.0. The R5 M240's predecessor is listed as Solar System, which is the same generation as the HD 8730M, while its successor is Polaris Mobile. The HD 8730M's predecessor is London and its successor is Gem System, which is the generation that includes the R5 M240.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R5 M240 is the faster GPU by a significant margin. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6975 is 17.1% higher than the HD 8730M's 5955, and it sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs versus the HD 8730M's 34th percentile. The R5 M240 also has higher pixel, texture, and FP32 throughput, which makes it the better choice for any compute-heavy or graphics-accelerated workload.

The R5 M240's placement among its nearest rivals confirms its competence. Being within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M and GTX 680M is a strong result for a chip with only 320 shading units. The HD 8730M, by contrast, is grouped with the Quadro K620M, UHD Graphics 730, and Quadro K4000, all of which are lower-tier parts. There is no scenario in the recorded data where the HD 8730M beats the R5 M240.

However, the HD 8730M is not without merit. Its 2 GB memory capacity and 128-bit bus provide double the bandwidth of the R5 M240. For users who work with large textures, high-resolution displays, or memory-hungry applications that fit within the GPU's compute limits, the HD 8730M may be more practical. But the database does not include a benchmark that isolates memory-bound performance, so this advantage is theoretical rather than measured.

The verdict for most users is simple: choose the R5 M240 if you want better compute performance, higher frame rates in light gaming, or faster GPU-accelerated tasks. Choose the HD 8730M only if you specifically need more than 1 GB of video memory and are willing to accept a 17.1% compute deficit. Given that both GPUs are end-of-life products, the R5 M240 is the stronger legacy option for anyone repurposing an older laptop. The HD 8730M remains a fallback for memory-sensitive workloads, but the recorded benchmark data favors the R5 M240 in every measurable way.