AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison
AMD Radeon R5 M240
GeForce GTX 1650
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and AMD Radeon R5 M240 represent two distinct eras of mobile and entry-level desktop graphics. The data places the GTX 1650 in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M240 sits just below at the 39th percentile, yet their average benchmark scores tell a story of a massive gulf in raw capability. The GTX 1650’s average score of 7472 dwarfs the R5 M240’s 6975, and the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, shows a 324.8% advantage for the NVIDIA card. This is not a close contest; it is a generational mismatch.
Where Each One Wins
The benchmark results offer a clear-cut division of labor, but it is overwhelmingly one-sided. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 wins the only head-to-head test available, which is the Geekbench OpenCL compute benchmark. Its score of 29629 against the R5 M240’s 6975 represents a 324.8% advantage. This single data point indicates that the GTX 1650 is in a completely different performance class for general-purpose GPU compute workloads, which often correlate with gaming and content creation tasks.
For the AMD Radeon R5 M240, there are no benchmark victories in the data. It has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison. Its only listed benchmark result is the Geekbench OpenCL score of 6975, which places it in the 39th percentile of all GPUs. The R5 M240’s nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (avg score 6946) and the NVIDIA T600 (avg score 7035), are all within a 2.1% delta of its score, suggesting it sits in a tight cluster of older, low-power mobile parts. The GTX 1650, by contrast, competes with parts like the Intel Arc A310 (avg score 7550) and AMD Radeon R7 350 (avg score 7425), which are all within a 1% delta of its average score. The data implies the GTX 1650 is the clear choice for any task requiring significant graphics processing power, while the R5 M240 is relegated to basic display output and light compute duties.
FAQ
Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 than the AMD Radeon R5 M240 in the shared benchmark?
A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1650 scores 29629, which is 324.8% higher than the R5 M240’s score of 6975.
Q: Which GPU has a better overall standing against all other GPUs?
A: The GTX 1650 sits in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M240 sits in the 39th percentile. Despite the nearly identical percentile ranking, the GTX 1650’s average benchmark score of 7472 is significantly higher than the R5 M240’s 6975.
Q: What is the closest competitor to the AMD Radeon R5 M240 based on average score?
A: The closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M, which has an average score of 6946, representing a 0.4% delta from the R5 M240’s score.
Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M240 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?
A: No. The data shows the GTX 1650 wins the single head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), and the R5 M240 has zero wins.
Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two GPUs?
A: The GTX 1650 features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M240 has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.
Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of DirectX?
A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is a landslide. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 29629, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975. This translates to a delta of 324.8% in favor of the NVIDIA card. To put that in perspective, the GTX 1650’s score is over four times higher than the R5 M240’s. This massive gap in compute performance is consistent with the other data points in the fact pack, such as the GTX 1650’s pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s versus the R5 M240’s 8.240 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s.
This single benchmark result is the only direct evidence of performance parity or lack thereof. The GTX 1650’s nearest rivals, like the Intel Arc A310 with an average score of 7550, are far closer in performance to it than the R5 M240 is. Conversely, the R5 M240’s nearest rivals, such as the AMD FirePro M5100 with an average score of 6830, are all within a 2.1% range of its score. The data strongly suggests that the GTX 1650 is not merely faster, but is operating in a different performance tier altogether.
Specification Differences
The fundamental specifications of these two GPUs reveal why the performance gap is so large. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The GTX 1650’s die size is 200 mm² and contains 4,700 million transistors, resulting in a density of 23.5M / mm². The R5 M240’s die is a mere 56 mm² with 690 million transistors, giving it a density of 12.3M / mm². This difference in manufacturing technology and die size accounts for a significant portion of the performance disparity.
The memory subsystems are also in completely different leagues. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M240 has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, which yields only 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a nearly 9x difference in memory bandwidth, which is critical for modern games and compute workloads. Clock speeds differ as well, with the GTX 1650 having a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost of 1665 MHz, compared to the R5 M240’s 1000 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. The bus interface also differs: the GTX 1650 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R5 M240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.
Architecture Differences
The architectural gap between these two GPUs is as wide as the manufacturing process gap. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is based on the Turing architecture, using the TU117 chip, and is part of the GeForce 16 generation. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 is based on the much older GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Jet chip, and belongs to the Gem System (R5 M200) generation. Turing introduced significant improvements in shader efficiency and feature support compared to GCN 1.0.
The compute resources are starkly different. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the GTX 1650 has nearly three times the shader cores and four times the ROPs. The GTX 1650 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 1650 has a higher FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS, while the R5 M240 has 659.2 GFLOPS. The GTX 1650 also supports FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature not listed for the R5 M240.
The Verdict
The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior GPU by every measurable metric in the fact pack. Its 324.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with its vastly higher pixel rate, texture rate, and memory bandwidth, make it the only choice for any serious gaming or compute workload. The GTX 1650 is also a more modern part, based on a 12 nm process and the Turing architecture, whereas the R5 M240 is based on the older 28 nm GCN 1.0 architecture. If a user is looking for a GPU that can handle modern tasks, the GTX 1650 is the clear winner.
The AMD Radeon R5 M240, with its single benchmark score and position in the 39th percentile, appears to be a legacy part suitable only for basic display output and very light, non-demanding workloads. Its closest rivals are all older NVIDIA mobile GPUs, indicating it is firmly in the low-power, entry-level segment of its time. The data suggests that a user with an R5 M240 would experience severe limitations in any modern 3D application. While the GTX 1650 is end-of-life and was launched with a 149 USD MSRP in April 2019, it remains in a different performance class than the R5 M240, which was released in September 2014. The verdict is simple: for performance, choose the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. For a basic, legacy display adapter, the R5 M240 exists, but it offers no competitive advantage in any benchmark recorded here.