AMD Radeon HD 8750M vs AMD Radeon R7 240 Comparison

The Verdict

Based on the recorded benchmark data, the AMD Radeon HD 8750M holds a clear performance advantage over the AMD Radeon R7 240. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the HD 8750M scores 5970, while the R7 240 scores 5063, a delta of 17.9% in favor of the mobile part. This places the HD 8750M in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the R7 240 sits in the 30th percentile. The data indicates that for any compute workload measured by OpenCL, the HD 8750M is the stronger choice.

The R7 240 does offer a larger memory pool at 2 GB compared to the HD 8750M's 1 GB, both using DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with identical 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. For workloads that are capacity-sensitive rather than bandwidth-sensitive, the R7 240's extra memory could be relevant, though the benchmark data does not include a test that isolates memory capacity. The R7 240 also has a documented 30 W TDP and a single-slot design with no power connectors, making it a straightforward drop-in for low-power desktop systems. The HD 8750M, lacking a listed TDP, is a mobile part and may be found in laptops.

For a user choosing between these two, the HD 8750M is the pick for raw compute performance. The R7 240 is the pick for a desktop system where a low-profile, single-slot card with no external power requirement is desired, and where the 2 GB frame buffer might be an advantage in specific scenarios not captured by the OpenCL score.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built by AMD using the same GCN 1.0 architecture and fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Each die contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² area, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The chip designs differ, however: the HD 8750M uses the Mars chip, while the R7 240 uses the Oland chip.

The HD 8750M has a higher compute configuration. It features 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The R7 240 scales down to 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and retains 8 ROPs. This represents a 20% reduction in shading units and TMUs for the R7 240 relative to the HD 8750M, which directly impacts the theoretical fill rates and floating-point throughput.

Clock speeds also favor the HD 8750M. The HD 8750M runs at a base clock of 775 MHz and a boost clock of 825 MHz. The R7 240 runs at a base of 730 MHz and a boost of 780 MHz. Combined with the higher shader count, this yields a peak FP32 rate of 633.6 GFLOPS for the HD 8750M versus 499.2 GFLOPS for the R7 240, a difference of roughly 27%. The pixel rate is 6.600 GPixel/s for the HD 8750M and 6.240 GPixel/s for the R7 240, while the texture rate is 19.80 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s.

Memory subsystems are nearly identical in terms of bandwidth. Both use DDR3 memory clocked at 900 MHz with a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s. The difference lies in capacity: the HD 8750M has 1024 MB, while the R7 240 has 2 GB. The effective memory speed is the same at 1800 Mbps.

Both parts support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, and both connect via PCIe 3.0 x8. The R7 240 has listed display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA. The HD 8750M does not have listed display outputs in the database. The R7 240 is also documented with a 168 mm length, 69 mm height, single-slot width, and a 200 W suggested PSU, while the HD 8750M has no physical dimensions recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data records a single head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, where the HD 8750M wins with a 17.9% higher score. That is the only measured victory in the database; the R7 240 has zero recorded wins. The interpretation, therefore, is that the HD 8750M wins in compute-oriented workloads, particularly those that exercise the OpenCL API, such as general-purpose GPU computing, image processing, and certain physics simulations.

The R7 240, while losing the compute benchmark, has structural advantages that could matter in contexts not covered by the test. Its 2 GB memory capacity is double that of the HD 8750M. In scenarios where a workload requires a larger working set to reside in local video memory, such as higher-resolution textures in older games or larger data buffers in compute tasks, the R7 240's capacity could prevent spills to system memory. The identical bandwidth, however, means that any capacity advantage does not come with a speed advantage.

The R7 240 also has a clear desktop integration story. It is a single-slot card, requires no power connectors, and has a 30 W TDP with a 200 W suggested PSU. The HD 8750M, as a mobile part, has no such specifications listed, suggesting it is intended for laptop integration where power delivery and cooling are handled by the system design. For a user building or upgrading a low-power desktop, the R7 240 is the only one of the two that the data confirms can be installed in a standard PCIe slot with minimal power demands.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8750M scores 5970 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063. The HD 8750M is 17.9% faster.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. Both use DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with a 28.80 GB/s bandwidth and an effective memory speed of 1800 Mbps. The HD 8750M has 1 GB, while the R7 240 has 2 GB.

Q: Are these GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are GCN 1.0 parts manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process. Both have 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The HD 8750M uses the Mars chip, and the R7 240 uses the Oland chip.

Q: What is the difference in shading unit count?

A: The HD 8750M has 384 shading units, while the R7 240 has 320 shading units. The HD 8750M also has 24 TMUs versus 20 TMUs on the R7 240; both have 8 ROPs.

Q: Does the R7 240 require a power connector?

A: No. The R7 240 has no power connectors, a 30 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 200 W. It is a single-slot card with a length of 168 mm and a height of 69 mm.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The HD 8750M is in the 34th percentile, while the R7 240 is in the 30th percentile. The HD 8750M's average benchmark score of 5970 exceeds the R7 240's 5063.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head test is Geekbench OpenCL. The HD 8750M delivers a score of 5970, and the R7 240 delivers 5063. The delta is 17.9% in favor of the HD 8750M. This is the only win recorded for either part, giving the HD 8750M one win and the R7 240 zero.

To contextualize the HD 8750M's score, the nearest rivals in the database are all NVIDIA Quadro parts and another AMD mobile GPU. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 5982, just 0.2% higher than the HD 8750M. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986, 0.3% higher. On the other side, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957, 0.2% lower, and the AMD Radeon HD 8730M scores 5955, 0.3% lower. This places the HD 8750M in a tight cluster where a 1% swing separates all four rivals. The HD 8750M is effectively at parity with these professional and mobile parts, despite being a mainstream mobile GPU.

The R7 240's nearest rivals are also closely grouped. The AMD Radeon R7 M340 scores exactly 5063, matching the R7 240 with a 0% delta. The AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034, 0.6% lower. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 5018, 0.9% lower, and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4998, 1.3% lower. The R7 240 sits at the top of this cluster, slightly ahead of several mobile and integrated parts, but its absolute score is 15.2% below the HD 8750M's nearest rival cluster.

The gap between the two reviewed GPUs is substantial. A 17.9% delta in OpenCL compute performance means that for any task that is shader-bound or fill-rate-bound, the HD 8750M will complete the work faster. The HD 8750M's advantage comes from a combination of higher clock speeds and a larger shader array. The base clock is 45 MHz higher, the boost clock is 45 MHz higher, and the shader count is 64 units higher. The FP32 throughput difference is 633.6 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS, which is a 26.9% theoretical advantage, slightly larger than the measured 17.9% delta, indicating some efficiency overhead in the HD 8750M's implementation or memory-bound constraints.

Texture rate also favors the HD 8750M at 19.80 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is closer: 6.600 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s, a 5.8% difference. This suggests that the ROP count being equal at 8, and the memory bandwidth being identical, the pixel throughput gap is moderated by the clock difference alone. The texture and shading advantages are amplified by the extra TMUs and shaders.

For the R7 240, the larger 2 GB memory pool is its primary distinguishing feature. In the recorded benchmark, this did not translate into a score advantage. The OpenCL test likely fits within 1 GB, so the extra memory is unused. A hypothetical test that exceeds 1 GB might show the R7 240 in a better light, but no such data exists in the database. The R7 240's placement in the 30th percentile versus the HD 8750M's 34th percentile reflects the overall performance hierarchy.

The R7 240's launch MSRP is 69 USD. The HD 8750M has no listed launch MSRP, consistent with its mobile orientation. The production status for both is end-of-life, and their release dates are separated by roughly seven months: the HD 8750M in February 2013 and the R7 240 in October 2013. The predecessor and successor names differ, with the HD 8750M following the London generation and preceding the Gem System, while the R7 240 follows the Sea Islands generation and precedes the Pirate Islands generation.

In summary, the recorded data shows a clear compute performance hierarchy: the HD 8750M is faster, denser in shader hardware, and higher clocked. The R7 240 is a low-power desktop part with more memory and a documented physical footprint. Buyers seeking OpenCL performance should choose the HD 8750M. Buyers needing a 2 GB buffer in a single-slot, no-connector desktop card should consider the R7 240, accepting a 17.9% compute penalty.