AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs AMD Radeon R9 M375X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes a single shared benchmark between these two mobile GPUs, and it is a decisive result. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R9 M375X scores 8273 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975 points. That translates to an 18.6% advantage for the R9 M375X, which is a substantial gap for two chips from the same GCN 1.0 architecture family.

To put that score into context, the R9 M375X sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 8325 across all recorded tests. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 at 8265 (a 0.7% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX at 8427 (1.2% faster), the AMD Radeon 880M at 8436 (1.3% faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 at 8458 (1.6% faster). The R9 M375X is essentially trading blows with these parts, sitting just below the GTX 675MX and the integrated Radeon 880M, but slightly above the Quadro K1200.

The R5 M240, by contrast, lands at the 39th percentile, with a recorded average of 6975. Its nearest rivals are a step lower in the standings: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M at 6946 (0.4% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M at 7023 (0.7% faster), the NVIDIA T600 at 7035 (0.8% faster), and the AMD FirePro M5100 at 6830 (2.1% slower). The R5 M240 is effectively in the same performance class as those older mobile parts, and it is roughly 18% behind the R9 M375X in the one test where they can be compared directly.

The head-to-head table is clean: one test, one winner, the R9 M375X, with no tests where the R5 M240 comes out ahead. That does not mean the R5 M240 is without merit; it means its merits lie in different areas, which the architecture and specification sections will clarify.

Architecture Differences

Both chips are built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and are fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process. Both share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both are end-of-life products, and both have the same predecessor and successor lineage. The differences are in scale and implementation.

The R9 M375X uses the Tropo chip, which packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². The R5 M240 uses the Jet chip, with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, a density of 12.3 million per mm². The density is nearly identical, which makes sense given the shared process node, but the R9 M375X has more than double the transistor count and more than double the die area.

That extra silicon translates directly into compute resources. The R9 M375X has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Every parallel processing resource on the R9 M375X is exactly double that of the R5 M240, which explains the near-doubling of theoretical throughput figures. The R9 M375X delivers 1,299.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, 40.60 GTexel/s of texture fill, and 16.24 GPixel/s of pixel fill. The R5 M240 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS, 20.60 GTexel/s, and 8.240 GPixel/s. The ratios are roughly 2:1 across the board, which is consistent with the doubling of execution units.

Clock speeds tell a slightly different story. The R9 M375X has a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost of 1015 MHz. The R5 M240 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1030 MHz. The smaller chip actually runs at higher clocks, but the R9 M375X compensates with far more hardware. The memory subsystem shows the biggest divergence. The R9 M375X uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) and a bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s. The R5 M240 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) and a bandwidth of only 14.40 GB/s. The R9 M375X has exactly five times the memory bandwidth, which is a critical factor for any fill-rate or bandwidth-sensitive workload.

The bus interface also differs. The R9 M375X connects via PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R5 M240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. That is a minor difference in practice for most workloads, but it is another indication of the R9 M375X being the more capable part.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for anyone choosing between these two. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X wins the only direct benchmark comparison by 18.6%, and it does so while offering double the shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and FP32 throughput. It also has a 5x advantage in memory bandwidth, which is the kind of margin that shows up in texture-heavy scenes and higher resolutions.

The R5 M240 is not a bad GPU for its intended role; it sits at the 39th percentile and is competitive with the NVIDIA GTX 675M and FirePro M5100. But it is a smaller chip with a narrower memory bus and less than half the compute resources. The recorded average benchmark score of 6975 versus 8325 for the R9 M375X tells the story: the R9 M375X is roughly 19% faster in aggregate, and the head-to-head test confirms it.

For a laptop GPU, the R9 M375X is the clear choice for gaming or any GPU-accelerated workload where performance matters. The R5 M240 is more appropriate for basic display output, light media acceleration, or tasks that do not stress the GPU heavily. There is no benchmark result in the database where the R5 M240 beats the R9 M375X, so the verdict is straightforward.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M375X | AMD Radeon R5 M240 |

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

| Chip | Tropo | Jet |

| Generation | Gem System (R9 M300) | Gem System (R5 M200) |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 925 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1015 MHz | 1030 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 72.00 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 320 |

| TMUs | 40 | 20 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.24 GPixel/s | 8.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 40.60 GTexel/s | 20.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,299.2 GFLOPS | 659.2 GFLOPS |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2014-09-17 |

The two chips share the same architecture, process node, foundry, API support, and production status. Everything else on the spec sheet is different, and in every meaningful compute or memory category, the R9 M375X is the larger part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmark data?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375X scores 8273 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 6975 for the AMD Radeon R5 M240, a difference of 18.6%.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The R9 M375X has 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth from its GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The R5 M240 has 14.40 GB/s from DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. That is a 5x difference.

Q: Are these chips on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, and both have nearly identical transistor density at around 12.2 to 12.3 million transistors per mm².

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The R9 M375X has 640 shading units, while the R5 M240 has 320. The R9 M375X also has double the TMUs and ROPs.

Q: How does the R5 M240 compare to its own nearest rivals?

A: The R5 M240 scores 6975 on average, which is 0.4% above the NVIDIA GTX 675M, 0.7% below the GTX 680M, 0.8% below the NVIDIA T600, and 2.1% above the AMD FirePro M5100.

Where Each One Wins

The R9 M375X wins in every category where the database has comparative data. The head-to-head OpenCL test is a 18.6% win. The theoretical compute figures are all roughly double the R5 M240: 1,299.2 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS in FP32, 40.60 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s in texture fill, and 16.24 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s in pixel fill. The memory bandwidth advantage of 72.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s makes the R9 M375X the better choice for any workload that is memory-bound, which includes most modern games at reasonable settings.

The R5 M240 has one narrow advantage in the recorded data: it runs at higher clock speeds. Its base clock is 1000 MHz versus 925 MHz, and its boost is 1030 MHz versus 1015 MHz. That helps it close the gap slightly in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive tasks, but the R9 M375X still wins the only actual benchmark. The R5 M240 is also a smaller chip at 56 mm² versus 123 mm², which implies lower power draw, though the database does not record TDP figures for either part, so that is an inference from the silicon size, not a measured result.

For use cases, the R9 M375X is the pick for gaming, GPU compute, video encoding, or any task that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan performance. The R5 M240 is acceptable for basic desktop compositing, media playback, and light acceleration, where its lower resource footprint is not a liability. If the workload is demanding enough to show up in a benchmark, the R9 M375X wins. If the workload is trivial, the R5 M240 will do the job without complaint, but the data does not show any scenario where it outperforms its larger sibling.