AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 Comparison

The data places the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 and AMD Radeon R5 M240 in the same overall performance percentile (39th), yet the benchmark results reveal a staggering gulf in raw compute capability. The GTX 970 is a desktop-class part from NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 generation, while the R5 M240 is a small mobile chip from AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture. Despite their shared 28 nm process node from TSMC, these two GPUs operate in entirely different performance strata, as the head-to-head data will show.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one common benchmark appears in the data for both GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 scores 29,982 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6,975 points. The delta percentage is a staggering 329.8% in favor of the GTX 970. This means the NVIDIA part delivers more than four times the OpenCL compute performance of the AMD part. The GTX 970 wins the only shared test, giving it a 1–0 record in head-to-head comparisons.

The sheer scale of this victory is worth emphasizing. A 329.8% advantage is not a marginal lead; it is a categorical difference in capability. The GTX 970’s average benchmark score across all its tested workloads is 7,157 points, which is actually slightly higher than the R5 M240’s single OpenCL score of 6,975. This suggests the GTX 970’s compute lead is not isolated to one test — its overall average is already above the R5 M240’s best result. The R5 M240’s nearest rivals in the database—NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6,946, +0.4%), AMD FirePro M5100 (6,830, +2.1%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7,023, –0.7%)—all cluster near its score, confirming the R5 M240 sits in a low-performance tier. Meanwhile, the GTX 970’s nearest rivals—Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7,170, –0.2%) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7,222, –0.9%)—also cluster near 7,000, but that is the GTX 970’s average, not its peak.

The data shows the GTX 970’s OpenCL score of 29,982 is roughly 4.3 times higher than the R5 M240’s 6,975. In practical terms, this means tasks like GPU-accelerated compute, rendering, or physics simulations would complete in a fraction of the time on the NVIDIA part. The R5 M240’s single benchmark result offers no counterpoint; there is no test in the data where the AMD chip comes out ahead.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The GTX 970 uses the GM204 chip built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per mm². The R5 M240 uses the Jet chip on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with just 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die — a density of 12.3 million per mm². The GTX 970 has nearly 7.5 times the transistor count and a die over 7 times larger.

Core configuration amplifies the gap. The GTX 970 packs 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 56 raster operation units (ROPs). The R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the GTX 970 has over 5 times the shading units, 5.2 times the TMUs, and 7 times the ROPs. Clock speeds are closer: the GTX 970 runs at 1050 MHz base and 1178 MHz boost, while the R5 M240 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. The NVIDIA chip’s higher boost clock, combined with vastly more execution resources, produces its massive lead.

Memory subsystems are equally divergent. The GTX 970 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M240 has 1 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 14.40 GB/s — a 15.6-fold bandwidth deficit. Memory clocks tell the story: the GTX 970’s memory runs at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the R5 M240’s runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Pixel and texture rates follow suit. The GTX 970 achieves 65.97 GPixel/s and 122.5 GTexel/s, versus 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s for the R5 M240. FP32 compute is 3.920 TFLOPS for the GTX 970 versus 659.2 GFLOPS.

Interface and feature support differ. The GTX 970 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R5 M240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 — halving the bus bandwidth for the AMD part. The GTX 970 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4; the R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6. The GTX 970’s display outputs include 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2; the R5 M240 lists no display outputs in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970 wins every category where data exists. In compute workloads, its OpenCL score is 329.8% higher. In rasterization, its pixel rate is 8 times higher and texture rate is nearly 6 times higher. In memory-bound tasks, its bandwidth advantage is over 15-fold. The GTX 970’s benchmark suite shows strength across API generations: Passmark DirectX 9 score of 143, DirectX 10 score of 46, DirectX 11 score of 71, DirectX 12 score of 41, plus a G3D score of 9,638 and GPU compute score of 4,073. Its Geekbench Metal score is 13,595 and Vulkan score is 20,005.

The R5 M240 has no wins in the data. Its only benchmark result is the OpenCL score of 6,975, which is below the GTX 970’s Passmark G3D score of 9,638. This indicates the AMD part would struggle even in synthetic graphics tests where the GTX 970 excels. The R5 M240’s nearest rivals all score below 7,100, placing it in the same tier as older mobile GTX 600-series parts and a modest FirePro workstation chip. The GTX 970’s rivals, by contrast, include integrated graphics like the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 and low-end desktop parts like the GTX 750, but the GTX 970’s average score still beats them all.

For gaming, the GTX 970’s 4 GB GDDR5 buffer and 224.4 GB/s bandwidth can handle modern textures at high resolutions, while the R5 M240’s 1 GB DDR3 and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth are severely limited. The GTX 970’s 56 ROPs provide robust fill-rate for anti-aliasing, whereas the R5 M240’s 8 ROPs would bottleneck even modest settings. For compute, the GTX 970’s 3.920 TFLOPS is in a different class from the R5 M240’s 659.2 GFLOPS. The data unambiguously favors the NVIDIA part in every measurable aspect.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 970 than the R5 M240 in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 970 scores 29,982 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the R5 M240 scores 6,975. This is a 329.8% advantage for the GTX 970.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. However, the GTX 970 packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the R5 M240 has 690 million on 56 mm².

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 970 has 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The R5 M240 has 14.40 GB/s from 1 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus — a 15.6-fold difference.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The GTX 970 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do the nearest rivals compare for each GPU?

A: The GTX 970’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7,203 points (–0.6% delta). The R5 M240’s nearest rival is the AMD FirePro M5100 at 6,830 points (+2.1% delta). Both GPUs sit in the 39th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What is the pixel rate difference?

A: The GTX 970 achieves 65.97 GPixel/s, while the R5 M240 achieves 8.240 GPixel/s — an 8-fold advantage for the NVIDIA part.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 outperforms the AMD Radeon R5 M240 in every benchmark and specification category measured. The 329.8% OpenCL lead is the headline, but the underlying architecture disparity — 1,664 vs 320 shading units, 104 vs 20 TMUs, 56 vs 8 ROPs, 224.4 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s bandwidth — makes the outcome inevitable. The GTX 970 is a high-end desktop GPU from 2014, while the R5 M240 is a low-end mobile chip from the same year, and the performance gap reflects their intended markets.

Who should pick the GTX 970? Anyone needing serious gaming, rendering, or compute performance. Its benchmark scores across Passmark DirectX 9–12, Geekbench Metal/Vulkan/OpenCL, and 3DMark Steel Nomad all indicate a capable, balanced GPU. Its 4 GB VRAM and 256-bit bus provide headroom for modern workloads. The data shows it beats its nearest rivals — GTX 750, Vega 8 Mobile, GTX 560 SE — by small margins, confirming its position as a solid mid-range part.

Who should pick the R5 M240? Only those with minimal performance needs. Its single benchmark score of 6,975 is below the GTX 970’s Passmark G3D score of 9,638. Its nearest rivals, such as the GTX 675M and FirePro M5100, are all similarly low-scoring. The R5 M240’s 1 GB DDR3 memory and 64-bit bus severely restrict its utility. For basic display output or light 2D workloads, it might suffice, but for any 3D or compute task, the GTX 970 is categorically superior. The verdict is not close.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 | AMD Radeon R5 M240 |

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

| Chip | GM204 | Jet |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | GeForce 900 | Gem System (R5 M200) |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1050 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1178 MHz | 1030 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.4 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1664 | 320 |

| TMUs | 104 | 20 |

| ROPs | 56 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 65.97 GPixel/s | 8.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 122.5 GTexel/s | 20.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.920 TFLOPS | 659.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 148 W | null |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | null |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | null |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | null |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm | null |

| Release Date | 2014-09-18 | 2014-09-17 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 700 | Solar System |

| Successor | GeForce 10 | Polaris Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | 329 USD | null |