AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs Intel Arc A310 Comparison

The Intel Arc A310 and AMD Radeon R5 M240 represent two very different eras of mobile graphics, separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The data shows a stark performance gulf, with the Arc A310 delivering a decisive victory in the only directly comparable benchmark. This comparison highlights the dramatic progress in GPU technology, from the R5 M240’s legacy GCN design to Intel’s modern Xe-HPG architecture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a landslide. The Intel Arc A310 scores 30,607 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 manages just 6,975 points. This translates to a deltaPct of 338.8%, meaning the Arc A310 is approximately 339% faster. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap. The Arc A310’s score places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M240 sits at the 39th percentile, yet the raw score difference is enormous, reflecting the much larger absolute performance ceiling of the newer part.

Looking at other benchmarks for the Arc A310, its average benchmark score is 7,550. This average is skewed by lower scores in legacy DirectX tests, such as 31 in Passmark DirectX 10 and 33 in DirectX 11, which are likely limited by driver overhead or test methodology. However, in more modern and compute-heavy workloads, it excels. Its Geekbench Vulkan score is 28,964, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 2,157, showing strong parallel processing capabilities. The R5 M240 has no comparable data for these tests, but its single OpenCL score of 6,975 is its only data point and its average. This lack of data for the older card in newer APIs suggests it is not competitive in modern workloads, whereas the Arc A310’s strong Vulkan and compute scores indicate it is built for contemporary software.

The Arc A310’s Passmark G3D score of 5,433 is also notable, showing solid DirectX performance in a more general 3D workload. In contrast, the R5 M240’s absence from this test, and its weak OpenCL showing, paints a picture of a part that struggles with anything beyond basic tasks. The data is unambiguous: in the one test where both are measured, the Arc A310 is in a different league entirely.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The Intel Arc A310 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, and is part of the Alchemist generation (Arc 3). It is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC, packing 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm². The AMD Radeon R5 M240, conversely, uses the much older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Jet chip, part of the Gem System (R5 M200) generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with just 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving it a density of 12.3 million per mm².

This process and transistor advantage translates directly into hardware resources. The Arc A310 features 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). It also includes 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the R5 M240. The older card offers 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Arc A310’s raw compute potential is listed at 2.688 TFLOPS FP32, with FP16 performance of 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1), whereas the R5 M240 is rated at just 659.2 GFLOPS FP32. The Arc A310 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the R5 M240 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Arc A310 has a newer Vulkan version (1.4) compared to the R5 M240’s 1.2.170.

Memory configurations are equally divergent. The Arc A310 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 124.0 GB/s. The R5 M240 uses just 1 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of only 14.40 GB/s. The difference in memory bandwidth is a factor of over eight. The Arc A310 also has a much higher memory clock of 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), compared to the R5 M240’s 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Arc A310’s pixel rate of 28.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 56.00 GTexel/s dwarf the R5 M240’s 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s, respectively.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310 wins in every measurable category where data exists. Its strengths are in modern, compute-heavy, and API-advanced workloads. The 338.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the primary indicator, but its high Vulkan score of 28,964 and GPU Compute score of 2,157 further cement its dominance in parallel processing tasks. This makes it suitable for tasks like video encoding, AI inference, and modern gaming that leverage DirectX 12 Ultimate features, including ray tracing. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory and high bandwidth also make it far more capable of handling larger textures and datasets than the R5 M240.

The AMD Radeon R5 M240, on the other hand, has no benchmark wins against the Arc A310. Its only score, 6,975 in OpenCL, is far lower. Its potential wins would be in legacy applications or scenarios where its lower power draw (though TDP is not listed for the R5 M240, the Arc A310 is a 30 W part) might be an advantage, but no data supports this. It is a product of its era, designed for basic multimedia and light gaming from 2014. Its 1 GB of DDR3 memory is a severe bottleneck, and its lack of modern API support means it cannot run many contemporary games or applications. The data suggests it is only suitable for the most basic of tasks, and even then, the Arc A310 would handle them with significantly more headroom.

In essence, the Arc A310 is a modern entry-level discrete GPU that can handle current software, while the R5 M240 is a legacy part that is now obsolete for any demanding use case. The only scenario where the R5 M240 might be considered is in a system with extreme power or thermal constraints, but with no TDP data for the R5 M240, even that comparison cannot be quantified.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Arc A310 than the AMD Radeon R5 M240 in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Arc A310 scores 30,607 points compared to the R5 M240’s 6,975 points, a deltaPct of 338.8% in favor of the Intel card.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 has only 14.40 GB/s. This is a massive difference, over eight times more bandwidth for the Arc A310.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M240 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Intel Arc A310 has 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, but the R5 M240 has none, as it is based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture.

Q: What are the DirectX versions supported by each card?

A: The Intel Arc A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 supports only DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A310 is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 uses a much older 28 nm process, also at TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A310 has an average benchmark score of 7,550, whereas the AMD Radeon R5 M240 has an average score of 6,975. However, this average for the Arc A310 is dragged down by low scores in legacy DirectX tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A310 | AMD Radeon R5 M240 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Chip | DG2-128 | Jet |

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 3) | Gem System (R5 M200) |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1750 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1750 MHz | 1030 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 124.0 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 320 |

| TMUs | 32 | 20 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| RT Cores | 6 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 28.00 GPixel/s | 8.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 56.00 GTexel/s | 20.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.688 TFLOPS | 659.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1) | null |

| TDP | 30 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2022-10-11 | 2014-09-17 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | Solar System |

| Successor | Battlemage | Polaris Mobile |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |