AMD Radeon R5 M430 vs AMD Radeon R7 240 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 240 and AMD Radeon R5 M430 are both entry-level graphics processors built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm TSMC process, but they target fundamentally different platforms: the R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card, while the R5 M430 is an integrated mobile part. Benchmark data from Geekbench shows the R5 M430 holds a narrow lead in raw compute, yet the R7 240 counters with a wider memory bus and higher memory bandwidth. The following analysis breaks down their respective strengths, benchmark performance, and architectural differences based strictly on the provided data.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M430 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark available, posting a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5152 against the R7 240’s 5063, a delta of 1.7%. This advantage stems from its higher clock speeds: the R5 M430 runs at a base of 780 MHz and a boost of 855 MHz, compared to the R7 240’s 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. The R5 M430 also achieves a higher pixel rate of 6.840 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 17.10 GTexel/s, versus 6.240 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s for the R7 240. For compute workloads, the R5 M430 delivers 547.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, outpacing the R7 240’s 499.2 GFLOPS.

The AMD Radeon R7 240, however, wins on memory subsystem specifications. It features a 128-bit memory bus with 2 GB of DDR3 memory and a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s, whereas the R5 M430 is limited to a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of DDR3 and 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. This 80% bandwidth advantage (28.80 vs 16.00 GB/s) gives the R7 240 a clear edge in memory-intensive scenarios, even if its raw compute is slightly lower. The R7 240 is also a standalone card with its own display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA), making it suitable for desktop systems, while the R5 M430’s outputs are portable-device dependent.

In terms of benchmark percentiles, both cards sit at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, indicating they are statistically equivalent in overall standing. The R5 M430’s average benchmark score is 5018, while the R7 240’s is 5063 — a 0.9% difference in favor of the R7 240 when averaging across available tests. This apparent contradiction (the R7 240 has a higher average but loses the direct OpenCL test) is explained by the R5 M430’s additional Vulkan benchmark score of 4884, which lowers its average. The R7 240 has only a single OpenCL score, so its average equals that score.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher peak FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M430 leads with 547.2 GFLOPS, compared to the R7 240’s 499.2 GFLOPS. This is driven by the R5 M430’s higher boost clock of 855 MHz versus 780 MHz on the R7 240.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The R7 240 has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 28.80 GB/s, thanks to its 128-bit bus. The R5 M430 manages only 16.00 GB/s over a 64-bit bus, despite having double the memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB).

Q: Are these GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use GCN 1.0 architecture and are fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process. They also share the same transistor density of 12.3M per mm², though the R7 240’s Oland chip has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the R5 M430’s Jet chip has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Q: Which card performs better in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The R5 M430 wins with a score of 5152 versus the R7 240’s 5063, a margin of 1.7%. The R5 M430 also has a Vulkan score of 4884, which the R7 240 lacks entirely.

Q: What are the power and physical differences?

A: The R7 240 has a 30 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 200 W. It measures 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The R5 M430 has no listed TDP, is classified as an integrated GPU (IGP), and has no listed dimensions, reflecting its mobile integration.

Q: Do both support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. They also share the PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon R5 M430 wins with a score of 5152 against the R7 240’s 5063. This represents a 1.7% performance delta. While this is a narrow margin, it is consistent with the R5 M430’s higher clock speeds — its 855 MHz boost clock is 75 MHz higher than the R7 240’s 780 MHz. The R5 M430 also shows a 9.6% advantage in FP32 throughput (547.2 vs 499.2 GFLOPS) and a 9.6% advantage in texture rate (17.10 vs 15.60 GTexel/s). Its pixel rate of 6.840 GPixel/s is 9.6% higher as well.

However, the R7 240’s memory bandwidth advantage is substantial: 28.80 GB/s is 80% higher than the R5 M430’s 16.00 GB/s. This difference could offset the R5 M430’s compute lead in bandwidth-bound workloads, though no direct benchmark in the data confirms this. The R7 240 also has a higher average benchmark score of 5063 versus the R5 M430’s 5018, a 0.9% margin. This is because the R5 M430’s average includes its lower Vulkan score of 4884, which drags its mean down despite winning the OpenCL test. In the nearest rival comparisons, the R7 240 is 0.9% ahead of the R5 M430, while the R5 M430 is 0.9% behind the R7 M340 and 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ most notably in memory configuration and physical form factor. The R7 240 uses a 128-bit memory bus with 2 GB of DDR3 and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the R5 M430 uses a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of DDR3 and 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds differ: the R7 240 runs at 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost, while the R5 M430 runs at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. Memory clock also varies: the R7 240’s memory operates at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the R5 M430’s operates at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

The R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card with 168 mm length, 69 mm height, no power connectors, a 30 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 200 W. It has three display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA. The R5 M430 is an integrated part with no listed TDP, dimensions, power connectors, or suggested PSU; its display outputs are portable-device dependent. The R7 240 was released on 2013-10-07 with a launch MSRP of 69 USD, while the R5 M430 has no release date or MSRP listed. The R7 240’s chip is Oland with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the R5 M430’s chip is Jet with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 1.0 architecture and use TSMC’s 28 nm process, resulting in the same transistor density of 12.3M per mm². They share identical core counts: 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores, and neither supports FP16 compute (both list null for fp16). The API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, with both using a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface.

The architectural difference lies in the chip design and scale. The R7 240’s Oland chip is larger, with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, whereas the R5 M430’s Jet chip is smaller with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Despite the size difference, both have identical core configurations, meaning the R5 M430 achieves its higher performance through higher clock speeds rather than additional compute units. The R7 240 belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation with a Sea Islands predecessor and Pirate Islands successor, while the R5 M430 belongs to the Gem System (R5 M400) generation with a Solar System predecessor and Polaris Mobile successor. Both are marked end-of-life in production status. The R7 240’s larger die and wider memory bus suggest it was designed for desktop bandwidth, while the R5 M430’s smaller die and higher clocks reflect mobile power efficiency priorities, though no TDP data is available for the R5 M430 to confirm.