AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs AMD Radeon R5 M435 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a clear, if narrow, picture: the AMD Radeon R5 M240 wins the only recorded head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, with a score of 6975 against the R5 M435's 5859. That is a 19% advantage for the older card, a substantial gap in raw compute performance. The R5 M435 does not win any recorded benchmark category, so any use-case advantage it might hold must be inferred from its memory and capacity specifications rather than from measured performance.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the R5 M240 sits in a competitive cluster. Its score of 6975 places it 0.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946), 0.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7023), and 0.8% below the NVIDIA T600 (7035). It also leads the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830) by 2.1%. This positioning suggests the M240 is a mid-pack performer in its peer group, trading blows with older NVIDIA mobile parts. The M435, by contrast, scores 5859, which puts it 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (5841) but 1.2% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929), 1.6% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955), and 1.6% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957). The M435's percentile rank is 33 among all GPUs, while the M240 sits at 39, reinforcing that the older part is the stronger performer in the database.

The M240 wins the compute workload decisively. The M435 may win on capacity (2 GB versus 1 GB) and memory bandwidth (36.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s), but no benchmark in the recorded data rewards those traits. For tasks that rely on raw OpenCL throughput, the M240 is the clear choice. For tasks that might benefit from more memory or faster memory, the M435 has the theoretical edge, but there is no measured evidence in the database to confirm it.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental silicon. The chip is codenamed Jet, built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Both have 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The shading unit count is identical at 320, with 20 texture mapping units and 8 raster operation units. Pixel rate is the same for both at 8.240 GPixel/s, texture rate is identical at 20.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute is exactly equal at 659.2 GFLOPS. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores, and neither supports FP16 in the recorded data.

The differences lie in clocks, memory, and generation labeling. The M240 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz. The M435 has a lower base clock of 780 MHz but matches the boost clock at 1030 MHz. This means the M240 runs at a higher sustained frequency, which explains its benchmark advantage. The memory subsystems are quite different. The M240 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The M435 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) on the same 64-bit bus, yielding 36.00 GB/s. That is 2.5 times the bandwidth of the M240, a significant architectural difference that the compute benchmark does not appear to reward.

The generations are labeled differently: the M240 belongs to the Gem System (R5 M200) generation, while the M435 belongs to the Gem System (R5 M400) generation. Both share the same predecessor, Solar System, and the same successor, Polaris Mobile. The M435 is marked as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with display outputs described as portable device dependent, whereas the M240 has no slot width or display output data recorded. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M240 was released on September 17, 2014, while the M435 followed on May 14, 2016. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The M240 scores 6975, the M435 scores 5859, and the M240 wins by 19%. This is a large margin for two GPUs with identical compute resources. The explanation lies in the clock speeds: the M240's base clock of 1000 MHz is 220 MHz higher than the M435's 780 MHz base, even though both boost to 1030 MHz. Sustained operation at a higher frequency gives the M240 a measurable advantage in OpenCL workloads that are sensitive to shader throughput.

The M435's higher memory bandwidth (36.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) and double the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1 GB) do not translate into a win on this test. That is notable. OpenCL compute workloads, at least as measured by Geekbench, appear to be more sensitive to core clock than to memory bandwidth for this class of GPU. The identical FP32 rating of 659.2 GFLOPS for both cards is a theoretical peak, but the M240's higher sustained clocks allow it to approach that peak more often in practice.

Looking at the rival comparisons, the M240's 19% lead over the M435 is larger than any of the gaps between the M240 and its nearest rivals, which range from 0.4% to 2.1%. Similarly, the M435's closest rival gaps are all within 1.6%. This suggests that the difference between these two Radeon parts is more significant than the differences between either card and its nearest competitors in the database. The M240 is not just slightly better than the M435; it is in a different performance tier, despite sharing the same chip, architecture, and transistor count.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon R5 M240 is the faster GPU in compute workloads, winning the only recorded benchmark by 19%. Its higher base clock and identical boost clock give it a sustained frequency advantage that the M435 cannot overcome, even with faster GDDR5 memory and double the capacity. The M240's percentile rank of 39 versus the M435's 33 reinforces this ordering.

However, the M435 is not without merit. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory at 36.00 GB/s bandwidth is a substantial upgrade over the M240's 1 GB of DDR3 at 14.40 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bound, such as certain texture-heavy tasks or larger data sets, the M435 could plausibly offer a better experience. The database does not contain a benchmark that tests this directly, so this remains an inference from the specifications rather than a measured result.

Buyers who prioritize compute performance, as measured by OpenCL, should choose the M240. Buyers who need more memory capacity or higher memory bandwidth, and who are willing to accept lower raw compute scores, might prefer the M435. The M435 is also a newer part, released in May 2016 versus September 2014 for the M240, which may matter for driver support or platform compatibility, though the recorded data does not quantify this. Both cards are end-of-life, so neither represents a future-proof investment. The M240 is the better performer in the recorded metrics; the M435 is the better memory subsystem. Choose accordingly.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975, which is 19% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M435's 5859.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same chip and architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Jet chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process by TSMC with 690 million transistors.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two?

A: The M240 has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory at 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the M435 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory at 36.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a higher base clock?

A: The M240 has a base clock of 1000 MHz, while the M435 has a base clock of 780 MHz. Both have a boost clock of 1030 MHz.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card in the database?

A: The M240's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (0.4% behind), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (0.7% ahead), and NVIDIA T600 (0.8% ahead). The M435's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (0.3% behind), Intel UHD Graphics 730 (1.2% ahead), and AMD Radeon HD 8730M (1.6% ahead).

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The M240 was released in September 2014, and the M435 was released in May 2016.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M240 | AMD Radeon R5 M435 |

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

| Generation | Gem System (R5 M200) | Gem System (R5 M400) |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | 1030 MHz |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective | 1125 MHz, 4.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 36.00 GB/s |

| Slot Width | Not recorded | IGP |

| Display Outputs | Not recorded | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2014-09-17 | 2016-05-14 |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 6975 | 5859 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 39 | 33 |

The two GPUs share identical shading units (320), TMUs (20), ROPs (8), pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s), texture rate (20.60 GTexel/s), FP32 compute (659.2 GFLOPS), transistor count (690 million), die size (56 mm²), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), and API support (DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170).