AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs AMD Radeon R7 240 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single decisive benchmark comparison between the AMD Radeon R7 240 and the AMD Radeon R5 M230. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R7 240 scores 5063 points, while the R5 M230 scores 4577 points. This gives the R7 240 a 10.6% advantage, a meaningful gap for two GPUs built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm process node.

The R7 240's score places it at the 30th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the R5 M230 sits at the 27th percentile. A three-percentile gap may not sound dramatic, but it reflects a real separation in raw compute capability. The R7 240 delivers 499.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the R5 M230 manages 390.4 GFLOPS. That is a 27.9% difference in theoretical floating-point throughput, though the actual benchmark delta is narrower at 10.6%.

The R7 240 also leads in memory bandwidth. Its 128-bit memory bus, paired with DDR3 memory running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), produces 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M230's 64-bit bus, with memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), yields just 16.00 GB/s. The R7 240 therefore has an 80% bandwidth advantage, which matters for memory-heavy workloads even if the OpenCL score does not fully reflect it.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern. The R7 240 achieves 6.240 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s, while the R5 M230 achieves 4.880 GPixel/s and 12.20 GTexel/s. The R7 240 is ahead by 27.9% in pixel throughput and 27.9% in texture throughput. These figures align closely with the FP32 gap, since both GPUs share the same 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The difference comes down to clock speed: the R7 240 runs at 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost, whereas the R5 M230 has no recorded base or boost clocks, but its lower output rates imply a slower operating frequency.

In the only head-to-head benchmark available, the win count stands at 1 for the R7 240 and 0 for the R5 M230. There is no recorded test where the R5 M230 pulls ahead.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 240 wins in every measured category. Its 5063 OpenCL score outpaces the R5 M230's 4577 by 10.6%. For compute-oriented tasks such as OpenCL acceleration, video encoding, or GPU-assisted processing, the R7 240 is the stronger part.

The R7 240's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon R7 M340, which matches its 5063 score exactly with a 0% delta, the AMD FirePro W4170M at 5034 (0.6% behind), the AMD Radeon R5 M430 at 5018 (0.9% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4998 (1.3% behind). This clustering shows that the R7 240 sits at the top of a tight group of similar-performance GPUs. It is not a standout among its peers, but it is the reference point for this class.

The R5 M230's nearest rivals tell a different story. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 4628, which is 1.1% ahead of the R5 M230. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 4621, 0.9% ahead. The AMD Radeon RX 560 scores 4569, 0.2% behind, and the Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4560, 0.4% behind. The R5 M230 finds itself in the middle of a mixed group that includes both high-end mobile GPUs and an integrated solution. Its 4577 score is competitive with these parts, but it is clearly below the R7 240's tier.

Where the R5 M230 might have a practical edge is in form factor and power draw. It is an IGP (integrated GPU) with portable-device-dependent display outputs, meaning it is designed for laptops where discrete graphics are not an option. The R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, requiring no power connectors and a 200 W suggested PSU. The R5 M230 has no recorded TDP, no power connector data, and no suggested PSU, reflecting its mobile integration. For a laptop user who cannot install a desktop card, the R5 M230 is the only choice of the two, regardless of performance.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R7 240 outperforms the AMD Radeon R5 M230 in every recorded benchmark and specification. Its 10.6% OpenCL lead, 80% memory bandwidth advantage, and higher pixel, texture, and FP32 rates make it the superior GPU on paper and in practice.

Users should pick the R7 240 if they need a low-power desktop solution with better compute performance. Its 30 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and single-slot design make it easy to drop into an existing desktop system. The 2 GB DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, which is adequate for entry-level gaming and general GPU acceleration. The R7 240 also has three display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA), giving it flexibility for multi-monitor setups.

Users should pick the R5 M230 only if their platform requires an integrated mobile GPU. It offers the same 320 shading units and 2 GB of memory, but with a narrower 64-bit bus and just 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. Its 4577 OpenCL score is respectable for an IGP, and it beats the Intel HD Graphics P530 by 0.4%, but it lags the R7 240 by a full 10.6%. For anyone comparing these two as discrete options, the R7 240 is the clear winner.

The R7 240's launch MSRP was 69 USD, while the R5 M230 has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577. The R7 240 is ahead by 10.6%.

Q: Do the two GPUs have the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use GCN 1.0 architecture and are built on a 28 nm process node at TSMC. They also share the same 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The R7 240 has a 128-bit memory bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the R5 M230 has a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 240 has an 80% bandwidth advantage.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the R7 240 in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M340 matches the R7 240's 5063 score exactly with a 0% delta. The AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034 (0.6% behind), the AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 5018 (0.9% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4998 (1.3% behind).

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the R5 M230 in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 4621 (0.9% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 4628 (1.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 560 scores 4569 (0.2% behind), and the Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4560 (0.4% behind).

Q: Is the R5 M230 a discrete desktop card?

A: No, it is an IGP (integrated GPU) with portable-device-dependent display outputs. It has no recorded dimensions, TDP, power connectors, or suggested PSU, indicating it is designed for mobile platforms.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental architecture: GCN 1.0 on a 28 nm TSMC process. They also have identical core counts: 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The similarities end there.

The R7 240 uses the Oland chip, which contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The R5 M230 uses the Jet chip, with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Both have a transistor density of 12.3M per mm², confirming they are built on the same process, but the R7 240's larger die houses more resources that translate directly into higher output rates.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The R7 240 has a recorded base clock of 730 MHz and a boost clock of 780 MHz. The R5 M230 has no recorded base or boost clocks, but its memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), which is faster than the R7 240's memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Despite having slower memory clocks, the R7 240 still achieves 28.80 GB/s bandwidth because of its wider 128-bit bus, compared to the R5 M230's 64-bit bus at 16.00 GB/s.

The R7 240 belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation and was released on 2013-10-07. Its predecessor is Sea Islands, and its successor is Pirate Islands. The R5 M230 belongs to the Gem System (R5 M200) generation and was released on 2014-01-06. Its predecessor is Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile. Both are end-of-life products.

The R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card with dimensions of 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height. It requires no power connectors, has a 30 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 200 W. Its display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA. The R5 M230 has no recorded dimensions, slot width is listed as IGP, and display outputs are dependent on the portable device it is integrated into.

API support is identical: both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. The R7 240's FP32 performance is 499.2 GFLOPS, while the R5 M230's is 390.4 GFLOPS. Pixel rates are 6.240 GPixel/s for the R7 240 and 4.880 GPixel/s for the R5 M230. Texture rates are 15.60 GTexel/s and 12.20 GTexel/s, respectively.

The transistor count difference, 950 million versus 690 million, reflects the R7 240's larger and more capable design. The R7 240 is not just faster in benchmarks; it is a physically larger chip with more compute resources, despite sharing the same core configuration on paper. The R5 M230's smaller die and narrower memory bus make it a lighter-weight solution suited for integrated mobile use, while the R7 240 is built to operate as a standalone desktop GPU with higher sustained throughput.