AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M scores 6946. The AMD card leads by 0.4%, a margin that is effectively negligible in real-world terms.

Q: How do these two compare to other GPUs in their performance class?

A: Both sit at the 39th percentile among all GPUs. The R5 M240 is 2.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830) and 0.8% behind the NVIDIA T600 (7035), while the GTX 675M is 1.7% ahead of the FirePro M5100 and 1.3% behind the T600.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same modern APIs?

A: No. The R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 675M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The GTX 675M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s. The R5 M240 has 1 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, providing only 14.40 GB/s — a 6.7x difference in bandwidth.

Q: What are the production statuses of these chips?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The R5 M240 was released on 2014-09-17, while the GTX 675M shipped earlier on 2012-03-21.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel and texture throughput?

A: The GTX 675M leads in both: 9.920 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s, and 39.68 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA card's texture rate is nearly double.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M240 wins the only benchmark recorded in this comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. Its score of 6975 edges out the GTX 675M's 6946 by 0.4%. This is a slim margin, but it means AMD takes the compute-oriented synthetic test.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M wins on raw hardware throughput metrics that matter for gaming and texture-heavy workloads. Its pixel rate of 9.920 GPixel/s is 20.4% higher than the AMD chip's 8.240 GPixel/s. The texture rate advantage is even larger: 39.68 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s, a 192.7% lead. Memory bandwidth is decisively in NVIDIA's favor at 96.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s.

For gaming scenarios, the GTX 675M's 2 GB frame buffer and 256-bit bus provide a structural advantage that the AMD card cannot match, despite the AMD card's slight synthetic score lead. The R5 M240's win is in compute workloads where raw shader throughput and API support (Vulkan) matter more than memory subsystem performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies and generations. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 uses the "Jet" chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M / mm².

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M is based on the GF114 chip using Fermi 2.0 architecture, built on an older 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This chip contains 1,950 million transistors spread across a much larger 332 mm² die, giving a transistor density of just 5.9M / mm². NVIDIA's design uses more than 2.8x the transistors and nearly 6x the die area to achieve its performance.

These architectural choices reflect different priorities. AMD's GCN 1.0 was designed for compute efficiency and scalability, while NVIDIA's Fermi 2.0 prioritized raw throughput and memory bandwidth. The R5 M240 belongs to the "Gem System (R5 M200)" generation, with its predecessor being "Solar System" and successor "Polaris Mobile". The GTX 675M is part of the GeForce 600M series, succeeding the GeForce 500M and followed by the GeForce 700M.

The memory technology also differs fundamentally. AMD uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while NVIDIA uses GDDR5 at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The GDDR5's higher effective data rate, combined with the 256-bit bus, explains the massive bandwidth gap.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification field:

• Process node: AMD uses 28 nm, NVIDIA uses 40 nm.
• Transistors: AMD has 690 million, NVIDIA has 1,950 million.
• Die size: AMD is 56 mm², NVIDIA is 332 mm².
• Transistor density: AMD achieves 12.3M / mm², NVIDIA only 5.9M / mm².
• Memory size: AMD has 1024 MB, NVIDIA has 2 GB.
• Memory type: AMD uses DDR3, NVIDIA uses GDDR5.
• Memory bus width: AMD uses 64 bit, NVIDIA uses 256 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: AMD has 14.40 GB/s, NVIDIA has 96.00 GB/s.
• Shading units: AMD has 320, NVIDIA has 384.
• Texture mapping units: AMD has 20, NVIDIA has 64.
• Render output units: AMD has 8, NVIDIA has 32.
• Pixel rate: AMD is 8.240 GPixel/s, NVIDIA is 9.920 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: AMD is 20.60 GTexel/s, NVIDIA is 39.68 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: AMD is 659.2 GFLOPS, NVIDIA is 952.3 GFLOPS.
• TDP: AMD has no listed TDP, NVIDIA is rated at 100 W.
• Bus interface: AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8, NVIDIA uses MXM-B (3.0).
• Slot width: AMD has none listed, NVIDIA uses MXM Module.
• Power connectors: AMD has none listed, NVIDIA lists "None".
• Display outputs: AMD has none listed, NVIDIA lists "Portable Device Dependent".
• Vulkan support: AMD lists 1.2.170, NVIDIA lists none.
• Release date: AMD is 2014-09-17, NVIDIA is 2012-03-21.

The NVIDIA card's 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs versus AMD's 20 and 8, respectively, highlight the massive difference in rasterization throughput capacity. NVIDIA also leads in FP32 compute at 952.3 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS, a 44.5% advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M scores 6946. AMD wins by 0.4%, a margin that puts them in a statistical tie for practical purposes.

Looking at the broader performance context, both GPUs occupy the same percentile rank of 39 among all GPUs. Their nearest rivals cluster tightly: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M scores 7023, the NVIDIA T600 scores 7035, and the AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6830. The entire competitive set spans less than 3% from bottom to top.

The R5 M240 is 0.7% behind the GTX 680M and 0.8% behind the T600, while being 2.1% ahead of the FirePro M5100. The GTX 675M is 1.1% behind the GTX 680M and 1.3% behind the T600, while being 1.7% ahead of the FirePro M5100.

The interesting story here is the architecture gap. The GTX 675M's hardware specifications are dramatically superior on paper — 44.5% more FP32 throughput, 92.7% higher pixel rate, 192.7% higher texture rate, and 6.7x more memory bandwidth. Yet in the OpenCL compute benchmark, it loses by a hair. This suggests the AMD GCN architecture is significantly more efficient at translating raw resources into compute results, or that the benchmark favors AMD's driver optimizations and newer process node.

The 28 nm process gives AMD a density advantage of 12.3M transistors per mm² versus NVIDIA's 5.9M, meaning the AMD chip is far more efficient per square millimeter. But NVIDIA's massive die and memory subsystem still deliver superior throughput for graphics-oriented tasks.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 wins the only compute benchmark recorded here, with a 6975 score against the GTX 675M's 6946 — a 0.4% lead. For users running OpenCL compute workloads, the AMD card is marginally better, and it also offers Vulkan 1.2.170 support, which the NVIDIA card lacks entirely.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M is the clear choice for graphics-heavy applications. Its 64 texture mapping units and 32 ROPs, combined with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivering 96.00 GB/s, give it overwhelming advantages in texture rate (39.68 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (9.920 GPixel/s vs 8.240 GPixel/s). The FP32 compute advantage of 952.3 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS further reinforces its position for tasks that scale with raw shader throughput.

The R5 M240's 14.40 GB/s memory bandwidth is a severe bottleneck for any workload that frequently accesses the frame buffer or large textures. The GTX 675M's 96.00 GB/s is in a different class entirely, and this will manifest in real-world gaming and rendering scenarios where memory access patterns dominate.

Considering the release dates, the GTX 675M launched in 2012, over two years before the R5 M240 in 2014. Despite the newer process node and architecture, AMD's chip only manages a 0.4% synthetic win while lagging massively on every memory and rasterization metric. This suggests the R5 M240 is positioned as an entry-level mobile part, while the GTX 675M was a higher-tier offering in its generation.

For a builder choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs, the decision hinges on workload. Compute tasks that leverage OpenCL and Vulkan favor the AMD R5 M240. Gaming, texture-heavy rendering, and anything requiring substantial memory bandwidth favor the NVIDIA GTX 675M by a wide margin. The GTX 675M's 2 GB frame buffer also future-proofs it better for modern game installs. The data shows a clear split: AMD for compute efficiency and API modernity, NVIDIA for graphics throughput and memory performance. Given that both sit at the 39th percentile among all GPUs, neither is a high-performance part today — but the GTX 675M's hardware advantages make it the more versatile choice for general graphics work.