AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs AMD Radeon RX 6400 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M240 and the AMD Radeon RX 6400 are separated by nearly eight years of architecture evolution, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. The R5 M240, built on GCN 1.0, was designed for entry-level mobile graphics in 2014. The RX 6400, based on RDNA 2.0, arrived in early 2022 as a desktop solution. The recorded measurements show a single head-to-head comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the RX 6400 delivers a score of 32011 against the R5 M240’s 6975. That is a delta of -78.2% from the perspective of the older card, meaning the RX 6400 outperforms the R5 M240 by a factor of roughly 4.6 in this compute workload. The data is unambiguous: the RX 6400 wins the only shared benchmark, and the R5 M240 has zero recorded wins in the head-to-head set.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark available in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, which measures general-purpose compute performance across a range of tasks. The R5 M240 scores 6975 points, placing it at the 39th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The RX 6400 scores 32011 points, which sits at the 35th percentile. The raw scores tell a simple story: the RX 6400 is 25036 points higher, a 78.2% advantage relative to the R5 M240’s result. To put that in context, the R5 M240’s nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (avg score 6946, 0.4% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (avg score 7023, 0.7% higher), the NVIDIA T600 (avg score 7035, 0.8% higher), and the AMD FirePro M5100 (avg score 6830, 2.1% lower). The R5 M240 is essentially clustered with those mid-range mobile parts from its era, all within a few percentage points of each other. This suggests that the R5 M240 is a competent but not exceptional performer for its generation, sitting right in the middle of a tight pack of similar-class GPUs.

The RX 6400, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 6001 across all its recorded tests, which include 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, multiple Passmark tests, Geekbench OpenCL, and Geekbench Vulkan. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (avg score 6000, 0% delta), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (avg score 5996, 0.1% lower), the AMD FirePro W4100 (avg score 5987, 0.2% lower), and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (avg score 5986, 0.3% lower). The RX 6400’s average score is therefore nearly identical to the GTX 770M, and it edges out the other three rivals by mere tenths of a percent. This indicates that while the RX 6400 is far ahead of the R5 M240 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, its overall average across multiple workloads places it in a different performance tier, one that is comparable to older high-end mobile GPUs from roughly a decade ago. The variance across its own benchmark results is worth noting: the RX 6400 scores 32011 in Geekbench OpenCL, 16372 in Geekbench Vulkan, 7673 in Passmark G3D, 2812 in Passmark GPU Compute, but only 176 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, and 54, 70, 30, and 93 in Passmark DirectX 10, 11, 12, and 9 respectively. The low DirectX scores relative to the OpenCL and Vulkan scores suggest that the RX 6400’s performance is highly workload-dependent, with compute-heavy tasks showing far stronger results than legacy DirectX rasterization tests.

The delta of -78.2% in Geekbench OpenCL is the only direct comparison available, and it is decisive. The RX 6400’s score is nearly five times higher, which aligns with the fundamental differences in their specifications, such as shader count and memory bandwidth, but the quantitative gap is what matters. For any user looking at the database, the head-to-head section provides no ambiguity: the RX 6400 is categorically faster in this compute benchmark. The R5 M240’s percentile ranking at 39 versus the RX 6400’s 35 is a quirk of the database, since percentiles are calculated against all GPUs and the RX 6400’s average is dragged down by its low Passmark DirectX scores. That does not change the fact that in the one test where both cards were measured, the RX 6400 wins by a massive margin.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for anyone choosing between these two GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the superior performer in the only shared benchmark, with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 32011 versus the R5 M240’s 6975, a 78.2% advantage. The R5 M240 has no recorded wins in the head-to-head comparison. If the selection is based purely on compute performance, the RX 6400 is the only rational choice. The R5 M240, with its 0 wins and 1 loss, cannot compete in this metric. The RX 6400 also offers modern API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 M240 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, which means the RX 6400 is better positioned for current software. The R5 M240 might be acceptable for legacy systems where only basic 2D or light 3D tasks are required, but the benchmark data shows no scenario where it outperforms the RX 6400. For a user who prioritizes compute performance, the RX 6400 is the recommended option.

Where Each One Wins

The R5 M240 does not win any recorded benchmark against the RX 6400. The head-to-head data shows zero wins for the R5 M240 and one win for the RX 6400. However, the R5 M240 does have some characteristics that could be relevant in specific contexts, based on its specification profile. It has a transistor density of 12.3M per square millimeter on a 28 nm process, with a die size of 56 square millimeters, which makes it a very small chip. Its power consumption is not listed in the database, but its architecture is from 2014 and it was designed for mobile use, so it likely draws far less power than the RX 6400’s 53 W TDP, although no wattage figure is recorded for the R5 M240 to confirm this. The R5 M240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the RX 6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4. For systems with older motherboards that lack PCIe 4.0 support, the R5 M240’s interface is more universally compatible, though the bandwidth difference is substantial: the RX 6400’s 128.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus the R5 M240’s 14.40 GB/s is a 8.9x gap in favor of the RX 6400.

The RX 6400, on the other hand, wins in every measurable performance category. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 32011, its Vulkan score is 16372, and its Passmark G3D score is 7673. It also has a much higher pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s for the R5 M240, and a texture rate of 111.4 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. These rates indicate that the RX 6400 is faster in both fill-rate-limited and texture-bound scenarios. The RX 6400 also has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units, compared to the R5 M240’s 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The RX 6400’s FP32 performance is 3.565 TFLOPS, while the R5 M240 is at 659.2 GFLOPS, a 5.4x difference. For any workload that relies on raw compute, shader throughput, or memory bandwidth, the RX 6400 is the clear winner.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 32011, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975. The RX 6400 leads by 78.2%.

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

A: The R5 M240’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M with an average score of 6946, which is 0.4% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M scores 7023, 0.7% higher, and the NVIDIA T600 scores 7035, 0.8% higher. The AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6830, 2.1% lower.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the RX 6400?

A: The RX 6400 has an average benchmark score of 6001 across all recorded tests. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M with an average score of 6000, a 0% delta.

Q: Does the R5 M240 win any benchmark against the RX 6400?

A: No. The head-to-head data records zero wins for the R5 M240 and one win for the RX 6400 in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 6400 has a memory bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s, while the R5 M240 has 14.40 GB/s. The RX 6400’s bandwidth is 8.9 times higher.

Q: Which card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is an earlier feature level.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural generations. The R5 M240 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process fabricated by TSMC, with a chip codenamed Jet. It contains 690 million transistors on a die size of 56 square millimeters, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M per square millimeter. The RX 6400 uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm process, also from TSMC, with a chip codenamed Navi 24. It packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 square millimeter die, giving a transistor density of 50.5M per square millimeter. That is a 4.1x improvement in density. The R5 M240 belongs to the Gem System generation under the R5 M200 series, while the RX 6400 is part of the Navi II generation under the Radeon RX 6000 series. The R5 M240’s predecessor is listed as Solar System and its successor as Polaris Mobile. The RX 6400’s predecessor is Navi and its successor is Navi III.

The R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. It has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RX 6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, plus 12 ray tracing cores. The RX 6400 also supports FP16 compute at 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the R5 M240 has no recorded FP16 capability. The RX 6400’s FP32 performance is 3.565 TFLOPS, versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M240. The RX 6400 uses a memory interface of 64 bits with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the R5 M240 uses a 64-bit bus with 1024 MB of DDR3 memory. The RX 6400’s memory clock is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, while the R5 M240 runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. The RX 6400 has a much higher pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s and texture rate of 111.4 GTexel/s, compared to 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s for the R5 M240.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification field. The R5 M240 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, while the RX 6400 has a base clock of 1923 MHz, a boost clock of 2321 MHz, and a game clock of 2039 MHz. The R5 M240 has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connectors, or suggested PSU, while the RX 6400 has a TDP of 53 W, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and recommends a 250 W PSU. The R5 M240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the RX 6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4. The RX 6400 has display outputs of 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the R5 M240 has no recorded display outputs. The RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 6400’s launch MSRP is 159 USD, which is stated once here as a factual record. The R5 M240 has no launch MSRP in the database. The RX 6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the R5 M240 has 1 GB of DDR3 with 14.40 GB/s. The RX 6400’s shading unit count is 768 versus 320, its TMU count is 48 versus 20, and its ROP count is 32 versus 8. The RX 6400 also has 12 ray tracing cores, which the R5 M240 lacks entirely. The release dates are 2014-09-17 for the R5 M240 and 2022-01-18 for the RX 6400. Both are listed as end-of-life products.