AMD Radeon HD 8750M vs AMD Radeon R5 M240 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M240 and AMD Radeon HD 8750M are both entry-level mobile GPUs from the same manufacturer, built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and the same 28 nm TSMC process, yet the recorded data puts them in clearly different performance tiers. The R5 M240 leads the only head-to-head benchmark by 16.8 percent in Geekbench OpenCL, sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs in the database versus the 8750M's 34th, and posts a higher average benchmark score (6975 versus 5970). Interestingly, the newer chip wins despite having a narrower memory bus and fewer shading units. For anyone choosing between these two end-of-life mobile parts today, the data favors the R5 M240 on raw compute, while the HD 8750M holds a few specification advantages worth understanding before dismissing it.

The Verdict

Pick the R5 M240 if the priority is measurable performance. It wins the single head-to-head comparison in the database, scoring 6975 against 5970 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 16.8 percent gap that is large enough to matter rather than being measurement noise. Its percentile placement, 39 versus 34, confirms the same ordering across the broader GPU landscape. Both parts sit well below the midrange, so neither is a candidate for serious gaming, but the R5 M240 is the stronger of the two on the evidence available.

The HD 8750M has no benchmark wins in this comparison, so choosing it means betting on its specification advantages, chiefly double the memory bandwidth, rather than measured results. That is a weaker position. Unless a specific workload is known to be bandwidth-bound, the database results indicate the R5 M240 is the safer pick. Both chips are end-of-life, so availability and condition of any used hardware matters more than a marginal spec sheet edge.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the GCN 1.0 architecture and are fabbed by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The similarities largely end there. The R5 M240 uses the Jet chip and belongs to the Gem System generation (R5 M200), released in September 2014. The HD 8750M uses the Mars chip from the Solar System generation (HD 8700M), released in February 2013, roughly a year and a half earlier. In fact, the HD 8750M's listed successor generation is the Gem System, which makes the R5 M240 effectively its generational replacement.

The die economics differ noticeably. Jet measures 56 mm² with 690 million transistors; Mars measures 77 mm² with 950 million transistors. Both land at the same transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The newer chip does more with a smaller die, which is consistent with its higher clock speeds rather than with a larger compute allocation.

Clocks are where Jet pulls ahead: 1000 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost, versus 775 MHz base and 825 MHz boost on Mars. Memory clocks are identical at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on DDR3. Both connect over PCIe 3.0 x8, both expose DirectX 12 (feature level 11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, and both have the same 1024 MB of DDR3 memory. Neither part has RT cores or tensor cores, as expected for this era and class.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in benchmarks?

A: The R5 M240. It scores 6975 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5970 for the HD 8750M, a 16.8 percent lead, and it wins the only recorded head-to-head test.

Q: How do they compare against other GPUs in the database?

A: The R5 M240 sits at the 39th percentile; the HD 8750M sits at the 34th. The R5 M240 trades blows with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (0.4 percent ahead), GTX 680M (0.7 percent behind), NVIDIA T600 (0.8 percent behind), and AMD FirePro M5100 (2.1 percent ahead). The HD 8750M is statistically tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K4000, Quadro K620M, AMD Radeon HD 8730M, and Quadro K4000M, all within 0.3 percent.

Q: Does the HD 8750M have any hardware advantage?

A: Yes, in raw specifications. It has 384 shading units and 24 TMUs versus 320 and 20 on the R5 M240, and its 128-bit bus delivers 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, double the R5 M240's 14.40 GB/s on its 64-bit bus. Both have 8 ROPs and 1024 MB of DDR3.

Q: Which GPU has more raw compute?

A: The R5 M240, by a slim margin. Its higher clocks push FP32 output to 659.2 GFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS, and it also leads in pixel rate (8.240 versus 6.600 GPixel/s) and texture rate (20.60 versus 19.80 GTexel/s).

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The R5 M240's successor line is Polaris Mobile; the HD 8750M's successor generation is the Gem System, the family the R5 M240 belongs to.

Q: Do they support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface.

Specification Differences

These are the fields where the two parts diverge; everything else listed (architecture, node, foundry, memory size and type, ROPs, bus interface, APIs, density) is identical.

| Field | AMD Radeon R5 M240 | AMD Radeon HD 8750M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Jet | Mars |

| Generation | Gem System (R5 M200) | Solar System (HD 8700M) |

| Release date | September 17, 2014 | February 25, 2013 |

| Transistors | 690 million | 950 million |

| Die size | 56 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 775 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1030 MHz | 825 MHz |

| Bus width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading units | 320 | 384 |

| TMUs | 20 | 24 |

| Pixel rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 6.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 19.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 659.2 GFLOPS | 633.6 GFLOPS |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 6975 | 5970 |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 39 | 34 |

The pattern is consistent: the R5 M240 compensates for less hardware with much higher clocks, and the 8750M compensates for lower clocks with more hardware and a wider bus. The measured result breaks in favor of clocks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There is one recorded head-to-head test in the database, and it is decisive.

Geekbench OpenCL: the R5 M240 scores 6975 and the HD 8750M scores 5970, a 16.8 percent win for the newer chip. For context, that margin dwarfs the gaps separating the R5 M240 from its own nearest rivals: it is within 0.4 percent of the GTX 675M, 0.7 percent behind the GTX 680M, 0.8 percent behind the NVIDIA T600, and 2.1 percent ahead of the FirePro M5100. A 16.8 percent lead is therefore several times larger than the band of GPUs the R5 M240 normally competes against.

The HD 8750M's neighborhood tells the same story from the other side. It is within a fraction of a percent of the Quadro K4000 (0.2 percent behind), Quadro K620M (0.2 percent ahead), Radeon HD 8730M (0.3 percent ahead), and Quadro K4000M (0.3 percent behind). Its rivals cluster tightly, and none of them reach the R5 M240's level. The final tally is one benchmark win for the R5 M240 and zero for the HD 8750M.

Where Each One Wins

R5 M240: everywhere the database measures. It wins OpenCL compute by 16.8 percent, leads in theoretical pixel fill (8.240 versus 6.600 GPixel/s), texture fill (20.60 versus 19.80 GTexel/s), and FP32 compute (659.2 versus 633.6 GFLOPS). It is also the smaller, denser-efficient chip: 56 mm² and 690 million transistors versus 77 mm² and 950 million. For any workload where measured compute throughput matters, and for laptops where die size and thermals matter, the R5 M240 is the pick.

HD 8750M: only on paper. Its 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth are double what the R5 M240 offers, and its 384 shading units and 24 TMUs exceed the R5 M240's 320 and 20. If a specific workload is memory-bandwidth-bound at low resolution, that extra bandwidth is the one theoretical argument in its favor. But no recorded benchmark validates it, and its lower clocks (775/825 MHz versus 1000/1030 MHz) drag its compute and fill-rate figures below the Jet chip across the board.

The bottom line from the recorded data: the R5 M240, the direct generational successor, wins every measured comparison and most theoretical ones. The HD 8750M's only edge is bandwidth and shader count, which never converts into a benchmark win in this database.