AMD Radeon R7 240 vs AMD Radeon R7 M340 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 240 and AMD Radeon R7 M340 occupy the same performance class, with an identical average benchmark score of 5063. Both GPUs sit in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, placing them at the entry-level tier of the market. The data shows a near-perfect performance parity, with the R7 240 edging ahead in the single available head-to-head test by a margin of 2.7%, a difference that falls well within run-to-run variance for most workloads. Despite this statistical tie, the two cards are fundamentally different products under the hood, separated by two generations of architecture and distinct design philosophies.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 against the AMD Radeon R7 M340’s 4932. This gives the R7 240 a 2.7% advantage, a narrow lead that is unlikely to translate into perceptible real-world performance differences in gaming or compute tasks. The delta is small enough that the data effectively indicates a tie; the 5063 average score for both cards confirms that neither holds a meaningful edge in aggregate performance.

When looking at the nearest rivals, both cards are bracketed by the same competitors. The AMD FirePro W4170M trails at 5034, which is 0.6% behind the R7 240’s score. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 follows at 5018, a 0.9% deficit, and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics closes the group at 4998, 1.3% behind. The R7 M340’s individual OpenCL score of 4932 puts it slightly below its average, while its Vulkan score of 5193 is notably higher, suggesting that API choice can shift the balance more than the hardware differences between these two cards.

The benchmark results indicate that the R7 240’s higher memory bandwidth (28.80 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s) does not compensate for the R7 M340’s higher clock speeds in all scenarios. In the OpenCL test, the R7 240’s wider 128-bit memory bus appears to provide a slight edge, but the 2.7% delta is remarkably small given the 80% difference in memory bandwidth. This suggests that memory bandwidth is not the primary bottleneck for these entry-level GPUs in compute workloads, with shader throughput and driver optimization playing a more significant role.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations, which explains their divergent specifications despite similar performance. The AMD Radeon R7 240 uses the Oland chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Volcanic Islands generation (R7 200 series). In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 M340 employs the Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, hailing from the Gem System generation (R7 M300 series). This generational gap is significant: GCN 3.0 introduces architectural refinements over GCN 1.0, including improved geometry processing and better power management, though these improvements do not manifest as a clear performance win in the available benchmarks.

The transistor counts differ substantially. The R7 240 packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the R7 M340 contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, yielding nearly identical transistor densities of 12.3M / mm² for the R7 240 and 12.4M / mm² for the R7 M340. The R7 M340’s larger die and higher transistor count support its more advanced architecture and higher clock speeds.

Clock speeds show a clear advantage for the R7 M340. Its base clock runs at 943 MHz with a boost up to 1021 MHz, compared to the R7 240’s 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. This translates into significantly higher compute throughput: the R7 M340 delivers 653.4 GFLOPS FP32 performance versus 499.2 GFLOPS for the R7 240, a 31% advantage. The R7 M340 also achieves higher pixel and texture rates, with 8.168 GPixel/s and 20.42 GTexel/s respectively, compared to 6.240 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s for the R7 240.

The memory subsystems are where the R7 240 fights back. Both cards feature 2 GB of DDR3 memory, but the R7 240 uses a 128-bit bus width versus the R7 M340’s 64-bit bus. This yields 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth for the R7 240 versus 16.00 GB/s for the R7 M340, a substantial 80% advantage. The memory clocks also differ, with the R7 240 running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) and the R7 M340 at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), though the R7 M340’s higher per-pin speed cannot overcome its narrower bus.

Both cards share identical shading units (320), texture mapping units (20), and render output units (8). The API support differs slightly, with the R7 240 supporting DirectX 12 (11_1) while the R7 M340 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both offer OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 M340 also lists FP16 throughput at 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1) while the R7 240 does not specify FP16 capability.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M340 delivers 653.4 GFLOPS FP32, which is 31% higher than the R7 240’s 499.2 GFLOPS. Its base clock of 943 MHz and boost clock of 1021 MHz both exceed the R7 240’s 730 MHz and 780 MHz respectively.

Q: Why do the average benchmark scores match despite the R7 M340’s higher clocks?

A: The average benchmark score for both cards is identical at 5063. The R7 M340’s higher compute throughput is offset by its memory bandwidth disadvantage; the R7 240 has 28.80 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s, a difference that limits the R7 M340 in bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth and why does it matter?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 has superior memory bandwidth at 28.80 GB/s, achieved through a 128-bit bus width. The R7 M340 uses a 64-bit bus width, resulting in only 16.00 GB/s despite a higher memory clock of 1000 MHz versus 900 MHz.

Q: Are these cards comparable in API support?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The key difference is DirectX support: the R7 M340 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) while the R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), meaning the R7 M340 has more complete DirectX 12 feature support.

Q: What are the physical differences between the two cards?

A: The R7 240 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with a 30 W TDP and a suggested 200 W power supply. The R7 M340 has no listed dimensions, TDP, or power connector information, as it is designed for mobile use.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The transistor densities are nearly identical. The R7 240 has 12.3M transistors per mm², while the R7 M340 has 12.4M per mm². The R7 M340 uses more transistors overall (1,550 million versus 950 million) on a larger die (125 mm² versus 77 mm²).

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a classic case of architectural trade-offs resulting in performance parity. The AMD Radeon R7 240 and AMD Radeon R7 M340 both average 5063 across their benchmark suites, placing them at the 30th percentile of all GPUs. In the head-to-head OpenCL test, the R7 240 wins by 2.7%, but this margin is negligible given the cards’ identical average scores.

For desktop users, the R7 240 offers a tangible advantage in memory bandwidth (28.80 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s), which can benefit certain compute workloads and higher-resolution textures. It also has defined physical specifications: a single-slot design, 168 mm length, 30 W TDP, and no power connector required. However, its GCN 1.0 architecture lacks the DirectX 12 (12_0) support found on the R7 M340, which may limit compatibility with newer titles that leverage advanced DirectX 12 features.

For mobile applications, the R7 M340 is the logical choice, given its unspecified power draw and compact design intended for laptops. Its GCN 3.0 architecture is more modern, with DirectX 12 (12_0) support and FP16 compute capability. The higher clock speeds (943 MHz base, 1021 MHz boost) give it a 31% edge in FP32 throughput, which can be advantageous in compute-heavy tasks that are not memory-bandwidth limited.

The data shows no clear overall winner. The R7 240’s OpenCL victory is offset by the R7 M340’s more modern feature set. Users prioritizing memory bandwidth and desktop compatibility should choose the R7 240. Users needing modern API support and higher compute throughput, particularly in a mobile form factor, should select the R7 M340. For most applications, the two will perform indistinguishably, as their identical average scores suggest.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 240 | AMD Radeon R7 M340 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Oland | Meso |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Generation | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) | Gem System (R7 M300) |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 730 MHz | 943 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 780 MHz | 1021 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 16.00 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 6.240 GPixel/s | 8.168 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 15.60 GTexel/s | 20.42 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 499.2 GFLOPS | 653.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not specified | 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 30 W | Not specified |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Not specified |

| Power Connectors | None | Not specified |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | Not specified |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA | Not specified |

| Dimensions | 168 mm x 69 mm | Not specified |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Release Date | 2013-10-07 | 2015-05-04 |

| Launch MSRP | 69 USD | Not specified |

| Predecessor | Sea Islands | Solar System |

| Successor | Pirate Islands | Polaris Mobile |