AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs Intel UHD Graphics 730 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct comparison between these two GPUs, and it is a clear win for the AMD Radeon R5 M240. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD part scores 6975 points against 5988 points for the Intel UHD Graphics 730. That is a 16.5% advantage for the Radeon, which is substantial enough to translate into noticeably smoother frame rates in compute-heavy workloads and older DirectX titles.

Looking at the broader performance context, the AMD R5 M240 sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Intel UHD Graphics 730 lands at the 33rd percentile. This means the Radeon is not just faster than this specific Intel part; it is also positioned higher relative to the entire field of recorded graphics processors. The Radeon’s average benchmark score of 6975 places it in the company of discrete mobile GPUs like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946, only 0.4% slower) and the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830, 2.1% slower). It even edges past the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7023, 0.7% faster) by a hair, meaning the R5 M240 is competitive with a high-end mobile part from its generation.

The Intel UHD Graphics 730, with an average score of 5929, is clustered around older discrete mobile chips such as the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, 0.4% faster) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957, 0.5% faster). Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982, 0.9% faster), is only marginally ahead. So while the Intel part trails the AMD R5 M240 by a wide margin, it is still within striking distance of several dedicated entry-level mobile GPUs, which is respectable for an integrated solution.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design philosophies and manufacturing ecosystems. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 uses the Jet chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The chip packs 690 million transistors onto a die size of 56 mm², giving it a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. This is a mature, power-lean design from 2014, aimed at thin-and-light laptops where a discrete GPU could still fit.

In contrast, the Intel UHD Graphics 730 is part of the Rocket Lake generation, using Generation 12.1 architecture. It is built on Intel’s 14 nm+++ process at Intel’s own foundry. The database does not list a transistor count or die size for this chip, but the process node is newer and the architecture is more modern in terms of feature support. The Intel part is an integrated GPU (IGP), meaning it shares system memory and has no dedicated VRAM of its own.

The R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster output units (ROPs). The UHD Graphics 730 has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The AMD part has more raw shader hardware, which explains its higher compute throughput. The AMD GPU’s pixel rate is 8.240 GPixel/s, while the Intel part achieves a higher 10.40 GPixel/s due to its higher clock speeds. However, the texture rate tells a different story: the Radeon delivers 20.60 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s for the Intel part, again reflecting the Radeon’s larger TMU count.

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The R5 M240 runs at a base clock of 1000 MHz with a boost of 1030 MHz. The UHD Graphics 730 has a base clock of just 300 MHz but boosts to 1300 MHz. The Intel part’s higher boost clock helps it close some of the gap in pixel throughput, but it cannot overcome the Radeon’s shader advantage in raw FP32 compute: 659.2 GFLOPS for AMD versus 499.2 GFLOPS for Intel. The Intel GPU does support FP16 at 998.4 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, which the AMD part does not expose in the database.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The R5 M240 has 1024 MB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The UHD Graphics 730 uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as “System Dependent.” This is a critical practical difference: the Radeon’s dedicated VRAM avoids contention with the CPU, while the Intel part must share the system memory controller, which can throttle performance in memory-intensive scenarios.

API support also diverges. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the R5 M240 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level, while the UHD Graphics 730 reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). In Vulkan, the Intel part supports version 1.4, while the AMD part supports 1.2.170. This means the Intel GPU is more future-proof for newer graphics APIs, even if its raw compute performance is lower.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975, which is 16.5% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 730’s 5988.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 730 have any dedicated video memory?

A: No, it uses system shared memory for both capacity and bandwidth, and the bandwidth is system dependent. The AMD R5 M240 has 1024 MB of dedicated DDR3 memory with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 730 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel UHD Graphics 730 uses Intel’s 14 nm+++ process.

Q: How do their shading unit counts compare?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 has 320 shading units, while the Intel UHD Graphics 730 has 192 shading units.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 730 has a pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s, which is higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M240’s 8.240 GPixel/s.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M240 | Intel UHD Graphics 730 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 12.1 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm+++ |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 690 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | Not listed |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | 1300 MHz |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 320 | 192 |

| TMUs | 20 | 12 |

| ROPs | 8 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 10.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 15.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 659.2 GFLOPS | 499.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 998.4 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | Not listed | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2014-09-17 | 2021-03-29 |

The release dates are telling: the R5 M240 came out in September 2014, while the UHD Graphics 730 launched in March 2021. Despite being seven years newer, the Intel part cannot match the AMD GPU in raw OpenCL compute. The R5 M240 is also listed as end-of-life, as is the UHD Graphics 730, so neither is a current product.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M240 wins in raw compute performance. Its 16.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, higher FP32 throughput (659.2 GFLOPS vs. 499.2 GFLOPS), and larger shading unit count make it the better choice for any workload that relies on parallel processing, such as older games, media encoding, or OpenCL-accelerated applications. Its dedicated 1024 MB of DDR3 memory with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth also means it does not steal bandwidth from the CPU, which can be a real advantage in laptops where system RAM is limited or slow.

The Intel UHD Graphics 730 wins on architectural modernity and API support. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Radeon is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. This makes the Intel part more compatible with the latest games and applications that require those newer API features. Its higher boost clock (1300 MHz vs. 1030 MHz) and higher pixel rate (10.40 GPixel/s vs. 8.240 GPixel/s) also mean it can handle fill-rate-bound scenarios, like 2D desktop rendering or light 3D scenes, more efficiently. The Intel part is also a 15 W integrated GPU, which is far simpler to cool and power than a discrete chip, although the R5 M240’s TDP is not listed in the database.

The Intel GPU also supports FP16 at 998.4 GFLOPS, which can be useful in certain machine learning or media workloads that leverage half-precision operations. The R5 M240 does not expose FP16 support, so it is not an option for those tasks.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R5 M240 is the faster GPU in this pairing. Its 16.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and its higher percentile ranking (39th vs. 33rd) show that it performs closer to mid-range discrete mobile GPUs, while the Intel UHD Graphics 730 sits near entry-level discrete parts. If your primary concern is compute performance, older games, or any OpenCL workload, the R5 M240 is the clear choice.

However, the Intel UHD Graphics 730 is not without merit. Its newer architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which the R5 M240 cannot match. For users who need compatibility with the latest graphics APIs, or who value the simplicity of an integrated GPU that shares system memory and requires no additional power connectors or cooling, the Intel part is the more practical option. Its higher boost clock and pixel rate also make it better at certain fill-rate-bound tasks.

Pick the AMD Radeon R5 M240 if you want the better benchmark performer and need dedicated VRAM for consistent memory bandwidth. Pick the Intel UHD Graphics 730 if you prioritize modern API support, lower power consumption (15 W), or are building a system where a discrete GPU is not an option. The R5 M240 wins on raw speed; the UHD Graphics 730 wins on being the more current and compatible part for today’s software environment.