AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs AMD Radeon R7 240 Comparison

# AMD Radeon R7 240 vs AMD Radeon R5 M335

The AMD Radeon R7 240 and AMD Radeon R5 M335 are both entry-level GPUs built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm process node from TSMC, yet they target different market segments within the low-end spectrum. The R7 240 is a desktop card from the Volcanic Islands generation (R7 200 series), released in October 2013, while the R5 M335 is a mobile GPU from the Gem System generation (R5 M300 series), released in October 2015. Despite sharing identical shader counts, texture mapping units, and ROPs, these two cards diverge significantly in memory configuration and clock behavior, resulting in a 6.7% performance gap in favor of the R7 240 in the only head-to-head benchmark available. The R7 240 scores 5063 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M335 averages 4752 across OpenCL and Vulkan tests, sitting at the 28th percentile. This places both cards firmly in the entry-level tier, with the R7 240 holding a modest but consistent edge.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but narrow hierarchy: the R7 240 outperforms the R5 M335 by 6.7% in the Geekbench OpenCL head-to-head comparison. This is not a transformative gap, but it is consistent with the R7 240's higher percentile ranking (30th vs 28th) and its stronger average benchmark score of 5063 versus the R5 M335's 4752 average. The R7 240 wins the only direct benchmark comparison, making it the default choice for raw compute performance in OpenCL workloads.

However, the R5 M335 is not without its own merits. It offers a Vulkan benchmark score of 4758, a test that the R7 240 does not appear in — the R7 240 only has OpenCL data. This suggests that the R5 M335 may have broader API coverage in testing, even if its OpenCL score is lower. For users running Vulkan-based applications, the R5 M335 at least has measurable performance, whereas the R7 240's Vulkan capability remains undocumented in this data.

The R7 240 is a desktop card with a 30 W TDP, single-slot design, and no power connectors, making it suitable for low-power desktop builds with a 200 W suggested PSU. The R5 M335 is a mobile GPU with no listed TDP, dimensions, or slot width — it is "Portable Device Dependent" in display outputs, meaning it is designed for laptops where thermal and power constraints are handled by the system manufacturer. The R7 240 is the pick for desktop users who want a discrete GPU with known power requirements and a physical card to install. The R5 M335 is the pick for mobile users who need a discrete GPU soldered into a laptop, accepting that its performance is slightly lower.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 240 wins decisively in the OpenCL compute arena. Its score of 5063 beats the R5 M335's 4745 by 6.7%, a margin that is meaningful at this performance tier. Looking at its nearest rivals, the R7 240 sits right alongside the Radeon R7 M340 (5063, 0% delta) and just ahead of the FirePro W4170M (5034, 0.6% delta) and R5 M430 (5018, 0.9% delta). This clustering indicates that the R7 240 is at the top of a tightly packed group of low-end GPUs, but not by a wide margin.

The R5 M335, by contrast, occupies a slightly lower tier. Its OpenCL score of 4745 is 0.5% ahead of the Radeon R8 M445DX (4727) and 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684), but it trails the Radeon R5 M255 (4788, -0.7% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791, -0.8% delta). Notably, the RTX 3080 12 GB appearing in the R5 M335's nearest rivals list is a fascinating anomaly — this top-tier NVIDIA card scores only 0.8% higher in this specific benchmark suite, highlighting how Geekbench OpenCL results can compress or distort the performance hierarchy across vastly different GPU classes.

The R5 M335's Vulkan score of 4758 is its only other benchmark data point, and it shows the card is capable of similar performance across both API families. The R7 240 has no Vulkan score, so the R5 M335 wins in the category of having documented API breadth. Where the R7 240 wins on raw OpenCL performance, the R5 M335 wins on measured versatility across multiple API types.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on TSMC's 28 nm process with the GCN 1.0 architecture, and both have a transistor density of 12.3M / mm². However, their physical implementations differ substantially. The R7 240 uses the Oland chip, which contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The R5 M335 uses the Exo chip, which packs 690 million transistors onto a 56 mm² die. The smaller die and lower transistor count of the R5 M335 suggest a more streamlined design, but the identical transistor density indicates the same manufacturing process and design rules.

The core configs are surprisingly similar: both have 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. This means the theoretical compute capabilities should be close, but the clock speeds tell a different story. The R7 240 has listed base and boost clocks of 730 MHz and 780 MHz respectively, yielding a pixel rate of 6.240 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 15.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 499.2 GFLOPS. The R5 M335 has no listed base or boost clocks, yet its pixel rate is 8.240 GPixel/s, texture rate is 20.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 659.2 GFLOPS — all significantly higher than the R7 240.

This is a curious data point. The R5 M335 has no documented clock speeds, but its computed rates are 32% higher in pixel throughput and 32% higher in FP32 than the R7 240. This suggests the R5 M335's actual clock speeds must be considerably higher than the R7 240's, despite the lack of formal clock listings. Yet the R5 M335 still scores lower in OpenCL. This implies that memory bandwidth or other factors are bottlenecking the R5 M335, overriding its theoretical compute advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 has an average benchmark score of 5063, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 has an average of 4752. The R7 240 is 6.7% higher in the direct OpenCL comparison.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API versions?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. However, the R7 240 only has a Geekbench OpenCL score in the data, while the R5 M335 has both OpenCL and Vulkan scores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The R7 240 has a 128-bit memory bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the R5 M335 has a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. Both use 2 GB of DDR3 memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The R7 240 has exactly double the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The R7 240 has a listed TDP of 30 W and requires a 200 W suggested PSU, while the R5 M335 has no TDP or PSU listed. The R7 240's power draw is documented, but the R5 M335's is not available in the data.

Q: Are the shading units the same?

A: Yes, both GPUs have 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The core configuration is identical, but the R5 M335 has higher theoretical pixel, texture, and FP32 rates.

Q: When were these GPUs released?

A: The R7 240 was released on October 7, 2013, and the R5 M335 was released on October 20, 2015. Both are now end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the R7 240 scores 5063 against the R5 M335's 4745. That is a 6.7% delta in favor of the R7 240. This is a meaningful margin in the entry-level segment, where every frame per second counts. The R7 240's victory here aligns with its higher average benchmark score and 30th percentile ranking versus the R5 M335's 28th percentile.

What makes this result intriguing is the theoretical compute discrepancy. The R5 M335 has a higher FP32 rate (659.2 GFLOPS) than the R7 240 (499.2 GFLOPS), yet it loses in the actual benchmark. The likely culprit is memory bandwidth: the R7 240 has 28.80 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the R5 M335 is limited to 14.40 GB/s over a 64-bit bus. In OpenCL workloads that are memory-bound, the R7 240's doubled bandwidth would give it a decisive edge, overcoming the R5 M335's higher raw compute throughput.

The R5 M335 does have one more data point: its Vulkan score of 4758, which is nearly identical to its OpenCL score of 4745. This suggests the R5 M335's performance is consistent across APIs, but it does not help close the gap with the R7 240, as no Vulkan score exists for the R7 240. The R7 240's nearest rivals all cluster within 1.3% of its score — the R7 M340 at 0% delta, the FirePro W4170M at 0.6%, and the R5 M430 at 0.9% — showing that the R7 240 is the leader of a very tight pack. The R5 M335's rivals similarly cluster, but with the R5 M335 being slightly below the middle of its group.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every physical specification except their core counts and manufacturing process. The R7 240 uses the Oland chip with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the R5 M335 uses the Exo chip with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Both are 28 nm TSMC parts with 12.3M / mm² transistor density.

Clock behavior diverges sharply. The R7 240 has documented base and boost clocks of 730 MHz and 780 MHz, while the R5 M335 lists no clocks at all. However, the R5 M335's derived rates are higher: 8.240 GPixel/s pixel rate, 20.60 GTexel/s texture rate, and 659.2 GFLOPS FP32, versus the R7 240's 6.240 GPixel/s, 15.60 GTexel/s, and 499.2 GFLOPS.

Memory is a major differentiator. Both have 2 GB of DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), but the R7 240 uses a 128-bit bus for 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the R5 M335 uses a 64-bit bus for 14.40 GB/s — exactly half. The R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card with 168 mm length and 69 mm height, requiring no power connectors and a 200 W suggested PSU. The R5 M335 has no dimensions, slot width, TDP, or PSU rating, and its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," confirming its laptop-oriented design.

The R7 240 has a launch MSRP of 69 USD and offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA outputs. The R5 M335 has no launch MSRP and relies on the host laptop for display connectivity. Both use PCIe 3.0 x8, and both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 240 is from the Volcanic Islands generation with Sea Islands as predecessor and Pirate Islands as successor, while the R5 M335 is from the Gem System generation with Solar System as predecessor and Polaris Mobile as successor.