AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs AMD Radeon R7 240 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear, if narrow, hierarchy between these two legacy AMD parts. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 is the faster GPU, winning the sole recorded head-to-head benchmark with a 15.7% advantage over the AMD Radeon R7 240. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R5 M435 scores 5859, while the R7 240 trails at 5063. This places the R5 M435 in the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, compared to the R7 240’s 30th percentile, a modest but consistent edge in overall standing.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision hinges on form factor and application. The R5 M435 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a slot width of "IGP," meaning it is designed for portable devices and is not a standalone add-in card. Its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," so it cannot be installed in a desktop system or connected to a standard monitor without the host laptop's own outputs. The R7 240, by contrast, is a single-slot desktop card with a 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and physical display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA. It requires a 200 W suggested PSU and uses no external power connectors.

Therefore, the verdict is straightforward: if the task is upgrading or building a desktop with a low-profile, single-slot card, the R7 240 is the only viable option, despite its lower compute performance. If the context is a laptop or all-in-one system with the R5 M435 already integrated, the data shows it outperforms the R7 240 in raw OpenCL compute, making it the better choice for portable workloads where its performance is accessible. Neither card is a modern solution; both are end-of-life products, but within their respective domains, the R5 M435 is the stronger compute part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M435. It scores 5859 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 15.7% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 240’s score of 5063.

Q: Are these two GPUs from the same architecture family?

A: Yes. Both are built on GCN 1.0 architecture, use a 28 nm process node from TSMC, and have the same transistor density of 12.3M per mm². However, they use different chips: the R5 M435 uses "Jet," while the R7 240 uses "Oland."

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: No. The R5 M435 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 36.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 240 also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s. The R5 M435 has higher bandwidth despite the narrower bus.

Q: Can the R5 M435 be installed in a desktop PC?

A: No. The R5 M435 is an IGP with a slot width of "IGP" and display outputs listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card with DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and VGA outputs.

Q: How does the R7 240 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The R7 240’s score of 5063 is exactly matched by the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (0% delta). It is 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034), 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018), and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998).

Q: What is the R5 M435’s position among its nearest rivals?

A: The R5 M435 (5859) is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (5841). It trails the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929) by 1.2%, the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955) by 1.6%, and the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957) by 1.6%.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental design language: GCN 1.0 architecture, 28 nm TSMC process, and an identical transistor density of 12.3M per mm². Yet the silicon underneath differs significantly. The R5 M435 uses the "Jet" chip, a smaller die measuring 56 mm² with 690 million transistors. The R7 240 uses the "Oland" chip, which is larger at 77 mm² and packs 950 million transistors. This means the R7 240 has roughly 260 million more transistors and a 21 mm² larger die, yet it delivers lower performance in the recorded benchmark, a result of clock speed differences and memory type.

The R5 M435 belongs to the Gem System (R5 M400) generation, while the R7 240 is part of the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. Their predecessors and successors also differ: the R5 M435 lists "Solar System" as its predecessor and "Polaris Mobile" as its successor, while the R7 240 lists "Sea Islands" and "Pirate Islands." This places them on different product timelines, with the R5 M435 releasing later (2016-05-14) than the R7 240 (2013-10-07).

The shading core counts are identical: 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs on both parts. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The architectural difference in practice comes down to clocks and memory. The R5 M435 runs at a base clock of 780 MHz with a boost of 1030 MHz, while the R7 240 is slower at 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. That 250 MHz boost advantage, combined with the GDDR5 memory, explains why the smaller chip outperforms the larger one. The R7 240’s DDR3 memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the R5 M435’s GDDR5 runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, so their API feature sets are identical.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification except shading units, TMUs, ROPs, memory size, and API support. The R5 M435 has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, versus the R7 240’s 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. The R5 M435’s memory clock is 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the R7 240’s is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Memory type differs: GDDR5 on the R5 M435 versus DDR3 on the R7 240. Bus width is narrower on the R5 M435 at 64 bit, while the R7 240 uses 128 bit, yet the R5 M435 still achieves higher bandwidth at 36.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s.

Pixel rate and texture rate favor the R5 M435. It delivers 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s, while the R7 240 manages 6.240 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M435 versus 499.2 GFLOPS for the R7 240, a 32% raw compute gap. Neither card has listed FP16 performance.

Physical specifications are where the R7 240 takes the lead in usability. The R5 M435 is an IGP with no TDP listed, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and no dimensions. The R7 240 has a TDP of 30 W, a single-slot form factor, no power connectors, a suggested PSU of 200 W, and dimensions of 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height. The R7 240 also has concrete display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA, whereas the R5 M435’s outputs are "Portable Device Dependent." The R7 240 has a launch MSRP of 69 USD, while the R5 M435 has no listed MSRP. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. The R5 M435 was released on 2016-05-14, and the R7 240 on 2013-10-07. Both are end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The R5 M435 scores 5859, and the R7 240 scores 5063, a 15.7% margin in favor of the R5 M435. This is a decisive win, and it aligns with the clock and memory advantages discussed earlier. The R5 M435’s boost clock is 250 MHz higher, and its GDDR5 memory provides 25% more bandwidth (36.00 GB/s vs. 28.80 GB/s). Those factors translate directly into the 15.7% score delta.

The R7 240’s nearest rival data shows it is a mid-to-low tier performer. Its score ties exactly with the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063, 0% delta), sits 0.6% above the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034), 0.9% above the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018), and 1.3% above the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998). In every case, the R7 240 is only marginally ahead of its closest competitors, never more than 1.3%. This indicates that within its performance class, the R7 240 is a baseline product, not an outlier.

The R5 M435, by contrast, sits in a slightly higher performance band but faces stiffer competition from non-AMD parts. It is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (5841), but it trails the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929) by 1.2%, the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955) by 1.6%, and the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957) by 1.6%. Its 33rd percentile ranking versus the R7 240’s 30th percentile reinforces the same conclusion: the R5 M435 is a modest step up, but both cards occupy the lower third of the GPU performance distribution.

In summary, the R5 M435 wins the only benchmark recorded, and it wins by a meaningful 15.7%. The R7 240, despite its larger die and more transistors, cannot overcome its slower clocks and DDR3 memory. For compute tasks measured by OpenCL, the R5 M435 is the clear winner. For desktop expandability and standard display connectivity, the R7 240 is the only choice of the two. The data does not record any other benchmark where the R7 240 takes a win, so the head-to-head record stands at 1 win for the R5 M435 and 0 wins for the R7 240.