AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs AMD Radeon R7 240 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 240 and AMD Radeon R5 M255 are both end-of-life mobile and desktop-oriented graphics solutions from AMD, but the benchmark data shows a clear, albeit narrow, winner. In the single head-to-head benchmark available, the R7 240 decisively outperforms the R5 M255, securing an 8.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL performance. This advantage, however, is set against a backdrop of architectural and specification differences that paint a more nuanced picture of where each GPU might be the better choice for a specific workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a victory for the older AMD Radeon R7 240. The R7 240 scores 5063 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M255 trails with 4650 points. This 8.9% delta is a substantial margin across low-end GPUs, indicating that the R7 240 offers a tangible performance advantage in compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL. The R7 240’s score is not just higher; it also places it in a different performance tier relative to its own rivals, where it matches the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at a 0% delta and beats the AMD FirePro W4170M by 0.6%.

Conversely, the R5 M255’s performance is closely clustered with a much more powerful set of rivals, which is a curious data point. Its average benchmark score of 4788 puts it in the same performance bracket as the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, which shows a delta of just -0.1%. This is almost certainly an artifact of the benchmark environment, but it highlights that the R5 M255’s raw compute output is competitive with a wide range of other GPUs, even if it loses the direct match-up. The R5 M255 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4925, which is higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting that its newer architecture is more efficient in that specific API.

The data shows only one win for the R7 240 and zero for the R5 M255 in the head-to-head tests, but the R5 M255’s additional Vulkan benchmark provides a data point that the R7 240 lacks. This means that while the R7 240 is the clear winner in OpenCL, the R5 M255 has a measurable capability in Vulkan that cannot be directly compared. The overall percentile rankings reinforce this, with the R7 240 sitting at the 30th percentile and the R5 M255 at the 28th percentile, a two-point difference that mirrors its slight deficit in the average score.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 240 is the winner in the compute-centric OpenCL workload. With 320 shading units and a base clock of 730 MHz, it achieves a pixel rate of 6.240 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 15.60 GTexel/s. These figures, while lower than the R5 M255’s, are paired with a higher benchmark score, suggesting that the R7 240’s architecture is more efficient at translating its theoretical throughput into actual OpenCL performance. Its 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for the low-resolution and low-detail settings this class of GPU is typically used for.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255, despite losing the OpenCL test, has the edge in raw specification headroom. Its GCN 3.0 architecture, built on the Topaz chip, features 384 shading units and 24 TMUs, which are 20% more than the R7 240. This translates to a higher texture rate of 22.56 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 7.520 GPixel/s. The R5 M255 also has faster memory clocks, running at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) to achieve a bandwidth of 32.00 GB/s. In scenarios that are less compute-bound and more dependent on raw fillrate or memory bandwidth, such as older DirectX 11 games, the R5 M255 should theoretically pull ahead, even if the benchmark data does not capture this directly.

The R5 M255’s Vulkan score of 4925 is a specific area where it has a measurable advantage over the R7 240, which has no Vulkan score listed. This indicates that for applications that utilize the Vulkan API, the R5 M255 is a more capable option. The R7 240’s strengths are more singular, focusing on a single benchmark win, while the R5 M255 offers a more balanced, if lower-scoring, overall package.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The AMD Radeon R7 240 is based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Oland chip, and belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. In contrast, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 employs the more advanced GCN 3.0 architecture, built on the Topaz chip, and is part of the Gem System (R5 M200) generation. This architectural jump explains the R5 M255’s support for DirectX 12 (12_0), whereas the R7 240 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1).

Both GPUs are manufactured on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, and their transistor densities are nearly identical, at 12.3M / mm² for the R7 240 and 12.4M / mm² for the R5 M255. However, the R5 M255 is a significantly larger chip, with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, compared to the R7 240’s 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. This size difference gives the R5 M255 384 shading units and 24 TMUs, versus the R7 240’s 320 shading units and 20 TMUs. Both have 8 ROPs and 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus.

The R5 M255 also features a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, offering 721.9 GFLOPS of half-precision performance, a capability not listed for the R7 240. The R7 240 has a clearly defined 30 W TDP and a single-slot design with no power connectors, while the R5 M255’s TDP and physical dimensions are not specified in the data. The R7 240 has defined display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA), whereas the R5 M255 has no display outputs listed, underscoring its likely intended use as a mobile-only GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 is faster, scoring 5063 points compared to the AMD Radeon R5 M255’s 4650 points, an 8.9% difference.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M255 have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes, the R5 M255 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4925, while the R7 240 has no Vulkan score listed, indicating a measurable capability in that API.

Q: What are the key architectural differences?

A: The R7 240 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Oland chip, while the R5 M255 uses the newer GCN 3.0 architecture with the Topaz chip. This gives the R5 M255 support for DirectX 12 (12_0) over the R7 240’s DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: Both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, but the R5 M255 has a higher memory clock of 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) resulting in 32.00 GB/s bandwidth, versus the R7 240’s 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) providing 28.80 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has 384 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 has 320 shading units.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The R7 240 ranks in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M255 ranks in the 28th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 240 | AMD Radeon R5 M255 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Chip | Oland | Topaz |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Base Clock | 730 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 780 MHz | 940 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 32.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 384 |

| TMUs | 20 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.240 GPixel/s | 7.520 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 15.60 GTexel/s | 22.56 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 499.2 GFLOPS | 721.9 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not specified | 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| TDP | 30 W | Not specified |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Not specified |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2013-10-07 | 2014-10-11 |

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon R7 240 is the superior choice for users prioritizing OpenCL compute performance. Its 8.9% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test is a decisive factor, and its higher percentile ranking (30th vs 28th) confirms its slight overall edge in the database. The R7 240’s lower TDP of 30 W also makes it a more power-efficient option, and its defined single-slot form factor and display outputs suggest it is a more straightforward desktop solution.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255, however, is not without merit. Its newer GCN 3.0 architecture and significantly higher raw specifications—384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth—make it a more future-proof part for applications that can leverage its capabilities. The R5 M255’s Vulkan score of 4925 is a concrete data point in its favor, and its support for DirectX 12 (12_0) is a clear advantage over the R7 240’s 11_1 feature level. For a user who values architectural modernity and theoretical performance over the single benchmark result, the R5 M255 is the better candidate. The data ultimately shows a trade-off: the R7 240 wins the measurable test, while the R5 M255 wins on paper. Choose the R7 240 for proven OpenCL performance, or the R5 M255 for a more capable feature set and faster memory.