AMD Radeon HD 8850M vs AMD Radeon R5 M240 Comparison

The AMD Radeon HD 8850M and AMD Radeon R5 M240 are two end-of-life mobile graphics processors from AMD, both built on the GCN 1.0 architecture using a 28 nm TSMC process. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy between them, but the more interesting story lies in how their architectural differences shape their suitability for different workloads despite the modest overall performance gap.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data records a single head-to-head comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975. This gives the HD 8850M a 6.8% advantage. As such, the HD 8850M is the outright winner in the only direct benchmark available, securing 1 win versus 0 for the R5 M240.

The HD 8850M’s victory is rooted in its larger compute configuration. It carries 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines, compared to the R5 M240’s 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This doubling of core resources translates into higher theoretical throughput: the HD 8850M reaches 800.0 GFLOPS FP32, 25.00 GTexel/s, and 10.00 GPixel/s, while the R5 M240 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS FP32, 20.60 GTexel/s, and 8.240 GPixel/s.

However, the R5 M240 is not without its own advantages. Its base clock of 1000 MHz and boost clock of 1030 MHz are significantly higher than the HD 8850M’s 575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost. This clock speed advantage partially compensates for the smaller core count, though not enough to overcome the HD 8850M’s raw resource lead in the OpenCL test. For workloads that are sensitive to memory bandwidth, the HD 8850M also holds a decisive edge with 64.00 GB/s versus the R5 M240’s 14.40 GB/s, a difference driven by the former’s GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus compared to the latter’s DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975. The HD 8850M leads by 6.8% in this test.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The HD 8850M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M240 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, providing 14.40 GB/s. The HD 8850M has over four times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Are there differences in clock speeds?

A: Yes. The R5 M240 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz. The HD 8850M has a base clock of 575 MHz and a boost clock of 625 MHz. The R5 M240 runs at nearly double the clock frequency.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The HD 8850M has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the R5 M240 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Their transistor densities are nearly identical at 12.2M / mm² and 12.3M / mm², respectively.

Q: Do they support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. There is no difference in their API feature sets.

Q: Which GPU is newer?

A: The HD 8850M was released on 2013-03-31, while the R5 M240 was released on 2014-09-17. The R5 M240 is the newer part by about a year and a half.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only available benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, which measures general-purpose compute performance. In this test, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M achieves a score of 7447, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 achieves 6975. The HD 8850M wins by a delta of 6.8%. This is a decisive but not overwhelming margin. For context, the HD 8850M’s nearest rivals include the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (score 7441, delta 0.1%), the AMD Radeon R7 350 (score 7425, delta 0.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (score 7472, delta -0.3%). The R5 M240’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (score 6946, delta 0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (score 7023, delta -0.7%), and the NVIDIA T600 (score 7035, delta -0.8%).

The 6.8% gap between the two AMD parts is larger than the gap between the HD 8850M and its closest competitors, which are all within 1.4% of its score. This suggests that while the HD 8850M sits in a tight performance cluster, the R5 M240 is positioned in a slightly lower tier. The R5 M240’s delta of 2.1% against the AMD FirePro M5100 (score 6830) shows it can punch above its weight against some rivals, but it does not close the gap to the HD 8850M.

The score difference can be attributed to the HD 8850M’s superior memory bandwidth and doubled shading unit count. Even though the R5 M240’s clocks are far higher, the HD 8850M’s 800.0 GFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M240 gives it a 21.4% theoretical compute advantage. The actual benchmark delta of 6.8% is smaller than this theoretical gap, indicating that the R5 M240’s higher clock speed helps it utilize its fewer cores more efficiently in OpenCL workloads.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The HD 8850M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The HD 8850M’s base clock is 575 MHz with a boost of 625 MHz, whereas the R5 M240 operates at 1000 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The HD 8850M comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M240 comes with 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s. The HD 8850M also has a wider bus interface at PCIe 3.0 x16, compared to the R5 M240’s PCIe 3.0 x8.

The HD 8850M’s pixel rate is 10.00 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 25.00 GTexel/s, both higher than the R5 M240’s 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s. The HD 8850M’s FP32 performance is 800.0 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M240.

The chips themselves differ in size and complexity. The HD 8850M uses the Venus chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the R5 M240 uses the Jet chip with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Transistor densities are nearly identical at 12.2M / mm² and 12.3M / mm², reflecting the same 28 nm process node from TSMC.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the GCN 1.0 architecture and are manufactured on TSMC’s 28 nm process. The critical architectural difference lies in the physical implementation. The HD 8850M’s Venus chip is substantially larger and more complex, with 1,500 million transistors versus the R5 M240’s 690 million. This allows the HD 8850M to double the number of shading units, TMUs, and ROPs.

The R5 M240’s Jet chip is designed for lower power and smaller physical footprint, evident in its 56 mm² die size versus the HD 8850M’s 123 mm². The R5 M240 compensates for its reduced core count with significantly higher clock speeds, running at 1000 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost compared to the HD 8850M’s 575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The HD 8850M utilizes GDDR5 memory with 4 Gbps effective speed, while the R5 M240 uses DDR3 with 1800 Mbps effective speed. This, combined with the bus width difference (128-bit versus 64-bit), results in the HD 8850M having 64.00 GB/s bandwidth versus the R5 M240’s 14.40 GB/s — a 4.4x difference. Both GPUs support the same API set: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The generation naming also differs. The HD 8850M belongs to the Solar System (HD 8800M) generation, while the R5 M240 belongs to the Gem System (R5 M200) generation. The HD 8850M’s predecessor is listed as London and its successor as Gem System, while the R5 M240’s predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

The Verdict

The benchmark results point to a clear, though modest, victory for the AMD Radeon HD 8850M. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it outscores the AMD Radeon R5 M240 by 6.8%, with 7447 versus 6975. The HD 8850M also holds a 40th percentile ranking against all GPUs, versus the R5 M240’s 39th percentile, indicating a slightly stronger overall position.

Users seeking the higher compute performance should choose the HD 8850M. Its doubled shading unit count (640 vs 320), broader 128-bit memory bus, and GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth make it the superior option for OpenCL workloads. The HD 8850M’s 800.0 GFLOPS FP32 throughput is also substantially higher than the R5 M240’s 659.2 GFLOPS.

However, the R5 M240 is not without merit. Its much higher clock speeds (1000 MHz base vs 575 MHz) mean that for tasks that are latency-bound rather than throughput-bound, it may perform more competitively than the raw core counts suggest. Its smaller die size (56 mm² vs 123 mm²) and lower transistor count (690 million vs 1,500 million) could imply lower power consumption, though TDP figures are not provided. The R5 M240 also represents a newer release, coming out on 2014-09-17 versus the HD 8850M’s 2013-03-31.

For buyers who prioritize raw compute capability and memory bandwidth, the HD 8850M is the clear choice. For those who might benefit from higher clock speeds and a more compact chip, the R5 M240 offers an alternative, albeit with 31% less FP32 performance and significantly less memory bandwidth. The data does not support the R5 M240 as a performance alternative; it is best considered when the HD 8850M’s larger memory footprint and wider bus are not required.