AMD Radeon R6 M255DX vs AMD Radeon R7 240 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data for this pairing is unusual: the two GPUs were not subjected to the same benchmark suite in the provided records. The AMD Radeon R7 240 was tested with Geekbench OpenCL, producing a score of 5063. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX was tested with Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 4867. Because these are different workloads, a direct percentage comparison between the two scores is not strictly valid from the data alone. However, the broader context from their respective nearest rivals provides a meaningful frame.

The R7 240’s OpenCL score of 5063 places it in a tight cluster of competitors. It is exactly tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M340, which also scores 5063 (0% delta). It edges out the AMD FirePro W4170M by 0.6% (5034) and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 by 0.9% (5018). The R7 240 also holds a 1.3% lead over the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics, which scores 4998. This positioning indicates that the R7 240 is at the upper boundary of its immediate performance tier, with its nearest rivals all falling within a narrow 1.3% band. Its 30th percentile ranking across all GPUs reinforces that this is an entry-level part, but one that sits slightly above the median of its own peer group.

The R6 M255DX’s Vulkan score of 4867 tells a similar story but with a different competitive set. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450, scores 4893, which is 0.5% higher, meaning the R6 M255DX trails that older card. It is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (4855) and 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844). The most striking comparison is with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, which scores 4901 — only 0.7% higher. This is a bizarre statistical artifact, as the RTX 5060 Ti is a modern, high-end part, but the data shows that in this specific Vulkan test, the R6 M255DX is only 0.7% behind it. The R6 M255DX’s 28th percentile ranking across all GPUs is slightly lower than the R7 240’s 30th percentile, suggesting that in absolute terms, the R7 240 has a marginally stronger overall standing in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same foundational architecture: GCN 1.0. Both use a 28 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, and both share an identical transistor density of 12.3M per mm². This is where the similarities in construction end, as the physical implementation differs substantially.

The R7 240 uses the Oland chip, which contains 950 million transistors on a die size of 77 mm². It is a discrete, single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The R6 M255DX uses the smaller Jet chip, packing 690 million transistors onto a 56 mm² die. The R6 M255DX is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), meaning it has no slot width, no dimensions, and its display outputs are dependent on the portable device it is embedded in. The R7 240, by contrast, offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA outputs and connects via PCIe 3.0 x8.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The R7 240 has a dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. Its memory clock is 900 MHz, translating to 1800 Mbps effective. The R6 M255DX has no dedicated memory; it uses System Shared memory, with the bus width also listed as System Shared and bandwidth described as System Dependent. This is a critical architectural divergence: the R7 240’s performance is consistent and isolated from the host system, while the R6 M255DX’s memory performance is entirely dependent on the laptop’s main system RAM and its configuration.

The compute resources are nearly identical on paper. Both GPUs feature 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. However, the clock speeds differ. The R7 240 runs at a base clock of 730 MHz with a boost of 780 MHz. The R6 M255DX runs higher, at a base of 780 MHz and a boost of 855 MHz. This clock advantage translates directly into throughput metrics: the R6 M255DX achieves a pixel rate of 6.840 GPixel/s versus the R7 240’s 6.240 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 17.10 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 547.2 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS. In every raw compute throughput measurement, the R6 M255DX leads by approximately 9-10%.

Power characteristics differ as well. The R7 240 has a TDP of 30 W, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU rating of 200 W. The R6 M255DX has no listed TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU, consistent with its integration into a laptop motherboard. Both support the same API levels: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 240 was released earlier, on 2013-10-07, and is marked end-of-life, with a successor in the Pirate Islands generation. The R6 M255DX followed on 2014-01-06, also end-of-life, and belongs to the Gem System Hybrid (Rx M200) generation.

Where Each One Wins

The R6 M255DX wins on raw compute throughput. Its higher clocks give it a decisive edge in pixel rate (6.840 vs 6.240 GPixel/s), texture rate (17.10 vs 15.60 GTexel/s), and FP32 (547.2 vs 499.2 GFLOPS). For any workload that is purely shader-bound and does not depend heavily on memory bandwidth, the R6 M255DX should render faster. The data suggests a roughly 9.6% advantage in FP32, which is meaningful for entry-level gaming at low resolutions and settings.

The R7 240 wins on memory consistency and isolation. With 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 128-bit bus providing 28.80 GB/s, its performance is not subject to the vagaries of system RAM. The R6 M255DX’s System Shared memory means its effective bandwidth is System Dependent, which introduces a variable that could significantly reduce performance in memory-intensive scenarios, especially if the host laptop uses single-channel memory or slower RAM. The R7 240 also wins on form factor flexibility, as it is a standalone card that can be installed in a desktop, while the R6 M255DX is locked into a portable device.

In terms of benchmark standing, the R7 240 has a slightly higher percentile rank (30th vs 28th), indicating that across the full database of GPUs, it is positioned marginally better. However, this is a small difference and could be attributed to the different benchmark tests used. The R7 240 also has a clear competitive identity among mobile and low-end desktop parts, while the R6 M255DX’s nearest rivals are mostly NVIDIA parts, including the oddly close RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB.

The Verdict

The choice between these two GPUs is largely predetermined by platform. The R6 M255DX is an IGP, meaning it is only available inside a laptop or portable device. The R7 240 is a discrete desktop card. If you are selecting a system, the platform dictates the GPU. That said, the data provides guidance on what to expect from each.

For a desktop user building a low-power, entry-level machine, the R7 240 offers a dedicated memory pool of 2 GB with a fixed bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. Its 30 W TDP means it can be powered without additional connectors, and its 168 mm length fits in most compact cases. Its OpenCL score of 5063 places it at the top of its immediate peer group, tied with the R7 M340 and ahead of the FirePro W4170M, R5 M430, and R7 Graphics. For basic desktop acceleration, legacy gaming, and OpenCL compute tasks, this is a predictable and stable option.

For a laptop user with an R6 M255DX, the data indicates that the GPU is capable of higher peak compute throughput than the R7 240, but that performance is contingent on system memory. The 547.2 GFLOPS FP32 rate and 17.10 GTexel/s fill rate are respectable for an IGP. Its Vulkan score of 4867, while from a different test, shows it performs in the same general league as the R7 240’s OpenCL result. The 0.5% lead over the GeForce 940MX and 0.2% lead over the GTX 560M suggest it is competitive with those older discrete mobile parts. However, the System Dependent bandwidth is a caveat: if the laptop’s RAM is slow or configured in single-channel, the effective performance will drop below the theoretical maxima.

The data does not declare a single winner. The R7 240 is the safer, more consistent choice for a desktop, while the R6 M255DX offers higher compute ceilings in a power-efficient, integrated package. Neither is a gaming powerhouse; both sit in the bottom third of all GPUs. Users seeking modern gaming performance should look at parts with far higher percentile rankings. For basic 3D acceleration, media playback, and light productivity, either will suffice, with the R7 240 providing more predictable memory behavior.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX, with 547.2 GFLOPS, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 240’s 499.2 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the AMD Radeon R7 240?

A: It has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s and a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Q: How does the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX handle memory?

A: It uses System Shared memory, with a bus width of System Shared and bandwidth described as System Dependent.

Q: What is the transistor count for each chip?

A: The R7 240’s Oland chip has 950 million transistors, while the R6 M255DX’s Jet chip has 690 million transistors.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life. The R7 240 was released on 2013-10-07, and the R6 M255DX was released on 2014-01-06.

Q: How does the R6 M255DX compare to the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX in benchmark scores?

A: The R6 M255DX scores 4867 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 0.5% ahead of the GeForce 940MX’s 4844.