AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs AMD Radeon R7 250 Comparison

AMD Radeon R7 250 and AMD Radeon R5 M240 are both end-of-life mobile/desktop graphics solutions built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture, but the benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy between them. The R7 250 scores 7557 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the R5 M240 scores 6975, giving the R7 250 an 8.3% advantage in the only head-to-head benchmark available. Both cards sit in the lower-middle tier of the overall GPU landscape, with the R7 250 ranking at the 41st percentile and the R5 M240 at the 39th percentile of all GPUs. The following analysis breaks down their relative performance, architectural differences, and ideal use cases based strictly on the data provided.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon R7 250 delivers a score of 7557 against the AMD Radeon R5 M240’s 6975. This represents a delta of 8.3% in favor of the R7 250, which is a meaningful margin in GPU terms. The R7 250 wins the only head-to-head test, and the data shows no benchmark where the R5 M240 comes out ahead.

Looking at the nearest rival data provides context for these scores. The R7 250’s 7557 score places it just 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 (7550) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472). It trails the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 by a negligible 0.3%, with that rival scoring 7580. The R5 M240’s 6975 score sits 0.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946) and 2.1% above the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830), but it falls 0.7% short of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7023) and 0.8% short of the NVIDIA T600 (7035).

The 8.3% gap between the two AMD cards is larger than any of the deltas observed between either card and its nearest rivals. This suggests the R7 250 holds a more substantial performance advantage over the R5 M240 than the two cards have over their closest competitors. In practical terms, the R7 250’s score puts it in a slightly higher performance neighborhood, alongside entries like the Arc A310 and GTX 1650, while the R5 M240 competes more directly with older mobile GTX 600-series parts.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 is faster, scoring 7557 versus 6975 for the AMD Radeon R5 M240, an 8.3% advantage.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The R7 250 is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, while the R5 M240 is 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M and 2.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro M5100.

Q: Do both cards use the same graphics architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on GCN 1.0 architecture, though the R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip while the R5 M240 uses the Jet chip.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: Both have 1024 MB of DDR3 memory, but the R7 250 uses a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the R5 M240 uses a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The R7 250 has 512 shading units, compared to 320 on the R5 M240, along with 32 TMUs versus 20, and 16 ROPs versus 8.

Q: What are the pixel and texture rates for each?

A: The R7 250 achieves 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s, while the R5 M240 achieves 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 250 wins in every measured category. It holds the advantage in raw compute performance with 947.2 GFLOPS FP32 versus 659.2 GFLOPS on the R5 M240, a difference of 288 GFLOPS. This compute advantage translates directly to the OpenCL benchmark score, where the R7 250 leads by 8.3%. The R7 250 also doubles the R5 M240’s pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s) and delivers a higher texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s compared to 20.60 GTexel/s.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive win for the R7 250. With a 128-bit bus, it achieves 28.80 GB/s, exactly double the 14.40 GB/s of the R5 M240, which uses a 64-bit bus. This bandwidth advantage is particularly relevant for texture-heavy workloads and higher-resolution rendering. The R7 250 also benefits from a wider PCIe interface, using PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8 on the R5 M240, which allows for faster data transfer between the GPU and system.

The R5 M240 does have a few specification advantages, though they do not translate into benchmark wins. It has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, whereas the R7 250 has no listed base or boost clocks. The R5 M240 also has a slightly higher transistor density at 12.3M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm². However, these factors do not overcome the R7 250’s larger chip, higher core counts, and doubled memory bandwidth in the actual benchmark results.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ substantially in their chip configurations. The R7 250 uses the Cape Verde 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. This means the R7 250 has over twice the transistor count and more than double the die area. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with nearly identical transistor densities (12.2M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm²).

Core configurations show a clear hierarchy: the R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, while the R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The R7 250 also has a higher FP32 compute rating at 947.2 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS. Pixel rate on the R7 250 is 14.80 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s on the R5 M240, and texture rates are 29.60 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s.

Memory specifications differ in bus width and resulting bandwidth. Both cards have 1024 MB of DDR3 memory running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), but the R7 250’s 128-bit bus yields 28.80 GB/s, while the R5 M240’s 64-bit bus yields 14.40 GB/s. The R7 250 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the R5 M240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, with a single-slot design and no power connectors; the R5 M240 has no TDP, PSU, slot width, or power connector data listed. The R7 250 is 168 mm (6.6 inches) long, while the R5 M240 has no dimensions listed.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the GCN 1.0 architecture, but they belong to different generations and chip families. The R7 250 is part of the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation with the Cape Verde chip, while the R5 M240 is part of the Gem System (R5 M200) generation with the Jet chip. The R7 250’s predecessor is Sea Islands and its successor is Pirate Islands; the R5 M240’s predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

The chips differ significantly in scale. Cape Verde packs 1,500 million transistors into 123 mm², while Jet packs 690 million transistors into 56 mm². This transistor budget difference directly explains the core configuration gap: the R7 250’s 512 shading units versus the R5 M240’s 320, 32 TMUs versus 20, and 16 ROPs versus 8. The larger chip also enables the R7 250’s wider 128-bit memory interface, which is a key architectural feature that doubles memory bandwidth.

Both cards support identical API levels: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The R7 250 includes display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), while the R5 M240 has no display output data listed. The R7 250 was released on October 7, 2013, while the R5 M240 came later on September 17, 2014, though both are now end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon R7 250 in every measurable aspect. Its 8.3% OpenCL benchmark advantage over the R5 M240 is supported by fundamental hardware differences: double the shading units, double the TMUs, double the ROPs, double the memory bandwidth, and a 43.6% higher FP32 compute rating. The R7 250 also holds a better position among all GPUs, ranking at the 41st percentile versus the R5 M240’s 39th percentile.

Users who need maximum compute performance from these two options should choose the R7 250. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A310 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, putting it in a performance class that is roughly 1% above those entries. The R5 M240, by contrast, sits closest to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M and GTX 680M, which are older mobile parts. The R7 250’s higher pixel and texture rates make it better suited for graphics-intensive tasks, while its wider memory bus provides more headroom for bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

The R5 M240 is the smaller, lower-power option based on its chip size and lack of a listed TDP, but the data shows no benchmark where it outperforms the R7 250. Its higher base and boost clocks (1000 MHz and 1030 MHz) do not compensate for its reduced core counts and half the memory bandwidth. Buyers or system integrators choosing between these two should default to the R7 250 unless power consumption or physical size constraints specifically favor the R5 M240, though no such data is available to quantify those differences. The verdict is unambiguous: the R7 250 wins on performance, and the R5 M240 offers no measured advantage in return.