AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

AMD Radeon R5 M240 and NVIDIA RTX A400 occupy very different positions in the database, separated by nearly a decade of GPU development. The R5 M240 is an end-of-life mobile chip from 2014, while the RTX A400 is an active workstation card released in 2024. Their benchmark records show one decisive head-to-head result, but the surrounding data reveals a broader story about compute capability, memory architecture, and feature support.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head comparison in the database contains a single test: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins that test outright, scoring 22,844 against the AMD Radeon R5 M240's 6,975. That is a 69.5% deficit for the older AMD part. In practical terms, the RTX A400 delivers roughly three times the raw compute throughput in this workload.

The R5 M240 has no recorded wins in any benchmark against the RTX A400. Its only benchmark entry is the same Geekbench OpenCL test, where it trails by a wide margin. The database shows zero wins for the AMD part and one win for the NVIDIA part. That makes the use-case split straightforward: the RTX A400 is the clear choice for any OpenCL compute workload.

However, looking at the RTX A400's broader benchmark suite, it also holds records in Vulkan, DirectX 10, DirectX 11, DirectX 12, DirectX 9, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute tests. The R5 M240 has no entries for any of those tests. So the RTX A400 also wins in graphics API coverage and legacy DirectX performance, simply because it has recorded data where the R5 M240 does not. For gaming-era DirectX 9/10/11 workloads, the RTX A400's PassMark scores (87, 32, and 37 respectively) are the only data points available. The R5 M240's absence from those tests means the RTX A400 is the only measured option.

For general 2D and 3D performance, the RTX A400 posts a G2D score of 899 and a G3D score of 5,983. Again, the R5 M240 has no comparable entries. The RTX A400 also records a GPU compute score of 2,557 in PassMark. The R5 M240's single OpenCL score of 6,975 cannot be directly compared to that PassMark metric, but it does show that the older chip has some compute capability.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design eras. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 uses the Jet chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip based on Ampere architecture, built on Samsung's 8 nm process. That chip contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, for a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The density difference is stark: the Ampere chip crams more than three times as many transistors per area unit.

The R5 M240 belongs to the Gem System generation under the R5 M200 series. Its predecessor is listed as Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile. The RTX A400 is part of the Workstation Ampere generation (Ax000 family), with Quadro Turing as its predecessor and Workstation Ada as its successor. These lineage markers place the two cards in completely separate product ecosystems.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The R5 M240 has 1,024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s. The bus width is identical, but the newer memory type and higher clock speed give the RTX A400 nearly 6.7 times the bandwidth. That bandwidth advantage directly explains its superior compute throughput in memory-bound workloads.

Compute resources also favor the NVIDIA part. The R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RTX A400 more than doubles the shading unit count and doubles the ROP count. It also adds hardware that the AMD chip lacks entirely: 6 RT cores for ray tracing and 24 tensor cores for AI workloads. The R5 M240 has no RT or tensor core equivalents listed.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The R5 M240 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost, with memory at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective). The RTX A400 runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost, with memory at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). Higher clocks across every domain compound the architectural advantages.

Pixel and texture rates follow. The R5 M240 achieves 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s. The RTX A400 achieves 28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA card fills pixels at over three times the rate and textures at over twice the rate. FP32 compute shows the largest gap: the R5 M240 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS, while the RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS. That is roughly a fourfold difference in raw single-precision throughput.

The RTX A400 also lists FP16 performance at 2.706 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32. The R5 M240 has no FP16 entry. The newer card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. Both handle modern APIs, but the RTX A400 reaches a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan revision.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6,975. The NVIDIA RTX A400 scores 22,844. The delta is 69.5% in favor of the RTX A400. That means the RTX A400 outperforms the R5 M240 by a factor of roughly 3.3 in this specific OpenCL workload. No other head-to-head tests exist in the record.

Context from the nearest rivals helps interpret these scores. The R5 M240's average benchmark score sits at 6,975, which places it in the 39th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M at 6,946 (0.4% behind the AMD part), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M at 7,023 (0.7% ahead), the NVIDIA T600 at 7,035 (0.8% ahead), and the AMD FirePro M5100 at 6,830 (2.1% behind). These deltas are all within a few percentage points, indicating the R5 M240 performs roughly on par with mid-range mobile GPUs from the early 2010s.

The RTX A400's average benchmark score is 6,078, which places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6,077 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6,049 (0.5% behind the RTX A400), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6,117 (0.6% ahead), and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6,019 (1% behind). The RTX A400's average is actually lower than its OpenCL score of 22,844, which suggests its PassMark scores pull the average down. The G3D score of 5,983 and GPU compute score of 2,557 are far below the OpenCL figure, dragging the mean toward the 6,000 range.

This creates an interesting paradox. In the head-to-head OpenCL test, the RTX A400 crushes the R5 M240 by 69.5%. But when comparing average benchmark scores, the R5 M240 (6,975) actually sits above the RTX A400 (6,078). The explanation lies in test coverage. The R5 M240 only has one recorded benchmark, a strong OpenCL result. The RTX A400 has nine recorded benchmarks, several of which (like PassMark DirectX scores in the 27 to 87 range) are much lower. Averages over different test sets are not directly comparable, but the data shows the R5 M240's single score is competitive with the RTX A400's overall average.

The RTX A400's individual PassMark results show a clear pattern. DirectX 9 scores highest at 87, DirectX 11 comes next at 37, DirectX 10 at 32, and DirectX 12 at 27. This suggests the card's legacy DirectX performance is stronger than its modern DirectX 12 performance, at least in PassMark's testing. The G2D score of 899 indicates solid 2D acceleration, while the G3D score of 5,983 shows mid-range 3D capability. The GPU compute score of 2,557 is modest, but the OpenCL score of 22,844 and Vulkan score of 22,237 show much higher compute potential through those APIs.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the superior GPU for compute workloads. Its OpenCL score of 22,844 versus the R5 M240's 6,975 is a decisive margin. The RTX A400 also brings modern features like RT cores, tensor cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and Vulkan 1.4 compatibility. The R5 M240 cannot match any of those capabilities.

For users choosing between these two, the RTX A400 is the only reasonable pick for any workload involving OpenCL, Vulkan, or modern graphics APIs. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth provides ample headroom for compute tasks. Its 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs deliver substantially higher pixel and texture rates. The 50 W TDP and single-slot design make it physically practical for workstation builds, with no power connectors required and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The R5 M240's only advantage is historical context. As an end-of-life part from 2014, it represents a legacy mobile GPU that was mid-range in its era. Its 28 nm process, 690 million transistors, and 1,024 MB of DDR3 memory are all dated. Its 320 shading units and 659.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute are a fraction of the RTX A400's capabilities. Anyone still running software that specifically requires the R5 M240's exact feature set might find it functional, but no benchmark in the database shows it winning against the RTX A400.

The percentile rankings add nuance. The R5 M240 sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, slightly above the RTX A400's 35th percentile. That ranking reflects the average benchmark scores, not the head-to-head result. Users should weigh the single OpenCL comparison more heavily, since it is the only direct measurement between these two specific parts.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 scores 22,844, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6,975. The RTX A400 leads by 69.5%.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The R5 M240 has 1,024 MB of DDR3 memory. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory. Both use a 64-bit bus.

Q: Does the RTX A400 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RTX A400 has 6 RT cores dedicated to ray tracing. The R5 M240 has no RT cores listed.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RTX A400's GA107 chip has a density of 43.5 million transistors per mm², while the R5 M240's Jet chip has 12.3 million per mm².

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX A400 delivers 96.00 GB/s, compared to the R5 M240's 14.40 GB/s. The RTX A400 has roughly 6.7 times the bandwidth.

Q: What API versions does each GPU support?

A: The R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M240 | NVIDIA RTX A400 |

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

| Chip | Jet | GA107 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 690 million | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | 1762 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 768 |

| TMUs | 20 | 24 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| RT Cores | None | 6 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 28.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 42.29 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 659.2 GFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | None listed | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | None listed | 50 W |

| Slot Width | None listed | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | None listed | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 163 mm (6.4 inches) long, 69 mm (2.7 inches) high |

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

| Release Date | 2014-09-17 | 2024-04-15 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Quadro Turing |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Workstation Ada |