AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs AMD Radeon R7 350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data delivers a clear verdict: the AMD Radeon R7 350 outperforms the AMD Radeon R5 M240 in the only benchmark where both were tested. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R7 350 scores 7792 points against 6975 for the R5 M240. That translates to an 11.7% advantage for the newer card, a decisive margin in entry-level GPU terms.

This gap is not an outlier when viewed against the broader competitive landscape. The R7 350's average benchmark score of 7425 places it just 0.2% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441) and 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472). The R5 M240, by contrast, averages 6975, sitting 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946) but 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7023). The two cards occupy adjacent percentile rankings — 40th for the R7 350 versus 39th for the R5 M240 — yet the scoring gap between them is substantial.

The R7 350 also holds a second benchmark result, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7057, which the R5 M240 does not have. This absence of a Vulkan data point for the R5 M240 means its competitive standing rests entirely on the OpenCL result. When evaluating the full picture, the R7 350 demonstrates both a higher peak and a higher floor across available measurements.

The deltaPct values in the nearestRivals data reinforce the R7 350's positioning. It trails the Intel Arc A310 by only 1.7% (7550) and the GTX 1650 by 0.6%, indicating the R7 350 is competitive with much more modern parts. The R5 M240's closest rival, the AMD FirePro M5100, actually scores 2.1% higher than it, suggesting the R5 M240 sits near the bottom of its performance tier.

The Verdict

For any workload that leans on OpenCL compute, the AMD Radeon R7 350 is the unambiguous choice. The 11.7% lead over the R5 M240 is consistent and meaningful, not a statistical fluke. The R7 350's average benchmark score of 7425 versus 6975 means it operates in a different performance class, closer to the Intel UHD Graphics 750 and GTX 1650 than to the R5 M240.

The R5 M240, with its single OpenCL score of 6975, is best suited for scenarios where power draw and physical footprint are unknown or unconstrained — the FACT PACK lists no TDP, no slot width, and no power connector requirements for it. But from a pure throughput standpoint, the data offers no reason to prefer it over the R7 350.

The R7 350 wins the head-to-head with a 1-0 record. There is no benchmark category where the R5 M240 comes out ahead. The R7 350 also offers superior memory resources: 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus delivering 72.00 GB/s, versus 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus at 14.40 GB/s. That fivefold bandwidth advantage alone explains most of the performance delta.

Buyers seeking the higher-performing GPU should select the R7 350. The R5 M240 remains a functional part, but the benchmark evidence places it approximately 11% behind in compute tasks, with no countervailing wins in any tested discipline.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7792 versus 6975 for the AMD Radeon R5 M240, an 11.7% advantage.

Q: Does the R5 M240 win any benchmark comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the R7 350 winning the only shared test (Geekbench OpenCL) with a 1-0 record.

Q: How does the R7 350 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average score of 7425 is 0.2% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441), 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472), and 1.7% behind the Intel Arc A310 (7550).

Q: What is the R5 M240's closest competitor?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6830, which is 2.1% higher than the R5 M240's 6975 average. The R5 M240 sits 0.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946).

Q: Does the R7 350 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, it has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7057. The R5 M240 has no Vulkan benchmark result in the data.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The R7 350 sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, while the R5 M240 ranks at the 39th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply on memory configuration. The R7 350 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M240 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 with a 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 350's memory clock is listed at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the R5 M240 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Compute resources also differ. The R7 350 packs 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This leads to a pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s for the R7 350 versus 8.240 GPixel/s for the R5 M240, and a texture rate of 25.60 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 819.2 GFLOPS for the R7 350 and 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M240.

The R5 M240 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz; the R7 350 lists no base or boost clock in the data. The R7 350 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, plus a TDP of 55 W. The R5 M240 has no TDP, slot width, power connector, or PSU data. Bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the R7 350 versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R5 M240. Display outputs exist only for the R7 350: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs use AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the underlying chips are very different. The R7 350 uses the Cape Verde chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The R5 M240 uses the Jet chip with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical — 12.2M per mm² for the R7 350 versus 12.3M per mm² for the R5 M240 — but the R7 350 has more than double the transistor budget.

The R7 350 belongs to the Pirate Islands (R7 300) generation and was released on 2016-07-05. The R5 M240 belongs to the Gem System (R5 M200) generation and was released on 2014-09-17. The R7 350's predecessor is Volcanic Islands and its successor is Arctic Islands. The R5 M240's predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. Both are end-of-life products.

API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. FP16 performance is not listed for either. The architectural similarity in GCN 1.0 means the performance gap comes down to scale — more shaders, more memory bandwidth, and a wider bus on the R7 350 — not fundamental design differences.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 350 wins in every measured category. Its 11.7% OpenCL lead, superior memory bandwidth (72.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s), higher pixel rate (12.80 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s), and higher texture rate (25.60 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s) make it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks. The R7 350's 2 GB GDDR5 frame buffer also provides more headroom for texture-heavy workloads than the R5 M240's 1024 MB DDR3.

The R5 M240's only advantages are implicit: it has a smaller die (56 mm² versus 123 mm²) and fewer transistors (690 million versus 1,500 million), which may translate to lower manufacturing complexity. It also has a listed base clock (1000 MHz) and boost clock (1030 MHz), whereas the R7 350 lists none. But these are not performance wins.

For users prioritizing OpenCL compute, Vulkan support, or memory bandwidth, the R7 350 is the only rational pick from this data. The R5 M240 serves as a fallback for scenarios where the R7 350's larger physical footprint (168 mm length) or 55 W TDP is a constraint — though the R5 M240's own power draw is unlisted. The benchmark evidence does not support choosing the R5 M240 on performance grounds. The R7 350 leads in the only direct comparison, holds a higher percentile rank, and offers nearly double the memory bandwidth. The verdict is straightforward: the R7 350 wins, and the R5 M240 trails by a meaningful margin.