AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs AMD Radeon R7 240 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data includes a single direct comparison between the AMD Radeon R7 240 and the AMD Radeon R5 M320 in the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this head-to-head matchup, the R7 240 scores 5063 points, while the R5 M320 trails with 5051 points, giving the R7 240 a narrow 0.2% advantage. This is not a meaningful margin of victory; the two GPUs are effectively tied in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload.

Looking at the broader database context, the R7 240's 5063 score places it at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M320's 5051 score lands it at the 27th percentile. The percentile gap is small, reflecting the near-identical performance. However, the R5 M320 also has a recorded Vulkan score of 4262, a test that has no corresponding entry for the R7 240 in the database, so a direct comparison in that API is not possible from the available measurements.

When examining nearest rivals, the R7 240 sits alongside the AMD Radeon R7 M340, which matches its average score of 5063 with a 0% delta, and the AMD FirePro W4170M, which scores 5034 (0.6% slower). The AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 5018 (0.9% slower), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4998 (1.3% slower). For the R5 M320, its average benchmark score of 4657 is dragged down by the Vulkan result; in OpenCL alone it nearly matches the R7 240. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at an identical 4657 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P400 at 4684 (0.6% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4628 (0.6% slower), and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4621 (0.8% slower).

The key takeaway from the head-to-head data is that the R7 240 wins the only shared test, but the delta is trivial. The R5 M320's OpenCL score of 5051 is within 12 points of the R7 240, which is within the noise of typical benchmark variance. The R5 M320 does have the advantage of an additional Vulkan benchmark result, suggesting broader API coverage in the database, but no performance comparison can be drawn from it.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051, a difference of 0.2% in favor of the R7 240.

Q: How does the R7 240 compare to its closest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 M340?

A: The R7 240 and the R7 M340 have identical average scores of 5063, showing a 0% performance delta. The R7 240 is also 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4170M and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M430.

Q: What is the R5 M320's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The R5 M320 sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, based on its average benchmark score of 4657. This is slightly below the R7 240's 30th percentile ranking.

Q: Does the R5 M320 have any benchmark results that the R7 240 lacks?

A: Yes, the R5 M320 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4262. The R7 240 has no recorded Vulkan benchmark result in the database, so no comparison is available for that test.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The R7 240 has a memory bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s, while the R5 M320 has a memory bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s. The R7 240 offers 80% more memory bandwidth despite having the same memory type.

Q: Are the two GPUs in the same performance tier according to the database?

A: Yes, they are close. The R7 240's 5063 OpenCL score and the R5 M320's 5051 OpenCL score are nearly identical, though the R5 M320's average benchmark score of 4657 is lower due to its Vulkan result. Both GPUs rank in the late 20s to low 30s percentile range.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and use a 28 nm process node at TSMC, with an identical transistor density of 12.3M per square millimeter. The underlying compute configuration is also the same: each has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation pipelines. Neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The core difference lies in the silicon itself. The R7 240 uses the Oland chip, which contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The R5 M320 uses the Jet chip, which packs 690 million transistors onto a 56 mm² die. This means the R7 240 has a physically larger and more transistor-dense implementation, though the functional unit counts are identical. The smaller Jet die in the R5 M320 is a more compact design, but it does not translate into a compute advantage.

Clock speeds differ notably. The R7 240 runs at a base clock of 730 MHz with a boost clock of 780 MHz. The R5 M320 runs higher, with a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz. Despite this clock advantage, the R5 M320's fill rates are only slightly higher: its pixel rate is 6.840 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s for the R7 240, and its texture rate is 17.10 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput follows the same pattern, with the R5 M320 delivering 547.2 GFLOPS against the R7 240's 499.2 GFLOPS, an 11% difference in raw compute.

The memory subsystems diverge significantly. The R7 240 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M320 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory but on a narrower 64-bit bus, which reduces bandwidth to 16.00 GB/s. The R5 M320's memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the R7 240's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The R7 240's wider bus more than compensates for its lower memory clock.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across several specification fields. The R7 240 has a base clock of 730 MHz and a boost clock of 780 MHz, while the R5 M320 has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz. Memory capacity differs: the R7 240 has 2 GB, the R5 M320 has 4 GB. Memory bus width also differs, with the R7 240 using a 128-bit interface and the R5 M320 using a 64-bit interface. This produces a bandwidth gap: 28.80 GB/s for the R7 240 versus 16.00 GB/s for the R5 M320.

Pixel rate favors the R5 M320 at 6.840 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s, as does texture rate at 17.10 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput at 547.2 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS. The R7 240 has a TDP of 30 W, while the R5 M320 has no recorded TDP. The R7 240 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W; the R5 M320 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connector or PSU recommendation. The R7 240's display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA, while the R5 M320's outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The R7 240 has physical dimensions of 168 mm by 69 mm, while the R5 M320 has no recorded dimensions. The R7 240 has a launch MSRP of 69 USD; the R5 M320 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows that the AMD Radeon R7 240 and the AMD Radeon R5 M320 are nearly identical in compute performance, with the R7 240 winning the sole head-to-head OpenCL test by just 0.2%. The R7 240 holds a clear advantage in memory bandwidth, delivering 28.80 GB/s versus the R5 M320's 16.00 GB/s, which is a 44% deficit for the R5 M320. This bandwidth gap could matter in memory-bound workloads, though the database does not include a direct test to quantify it.

The R5 M320 counters with higher clock speeds and slightly higher fill rates and FP32 throughput, though these advantages are modest (roughly 9-11% in FP32). It also offers twice the memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB), which can be relevant for larger textures or datasets, even if the narrower bus limits how quickly that memory can be accessed. The R5 M320's additional Vulkan benchmark score of 4262 provides some evidence of its API versatility, but without a comparable R7 240 Vulkan result, its significance is unclear.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the data points in different directions. The R7 240 is the better choice for workloads that depend on memory bandwidth, given its 80% higher bandwidth figure. It also has a lower TDP at 30 W and a defined physical form factor, making it a predictable component for a desktop build. The R5 M320, as an IGP, is inherently tied to a portable device and cannot be installed as a discrete card. Its higher FP32 throughput and larger memory pool are the recorded advantages, but these are partially offset by the narrower memory bus and lower bandwidth.

The percentile rankings reinforce the conclusion that neither GPU is a performance leader: the R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile and the R5 M320 at the 27th percentile of all GPUs. The R7 240's nearest rivals are all AMD parts within a 1.3% delta, while the R5 M320's nearest rivals include both NVIDIA and AMD parts within a 0.8% delta. The R7 240 edges out the R5 M320 in the only shared benchmark, and it offers superior memory bandwidth, but the R5 M320 provides more memory capacity and slightly higher compute throughput. The choice depends on whether memory bandwidth or memory capacity takes priority, with the R7 240 having the edge in the former and the R5 M320 in the latter. Given the near-tie in compute and the substantial bandwidth advantage, the data slightly favors the R7 240 for most general-purpose workloads.