AMD Radeon R7 240 vs AMD Radeon R7 M365X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M365X wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, scoring 5939 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5063 for the R7 240, a 17.3% advantage.

Q: How do these cards compare in overall benchmark position?

A: The R7 M365X holds a 32nd percentile rank among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 5416, while the R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile with an average score of 5063.

Q: What are the closest competitors to the R7 M365X?

A: The nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon 610M (5444, 0.5% lower), Intel UHD Graphics P630 (5370, 0.9% higher), NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467, 0.9% lower), and AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358, 1.1% higher).

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The R7 M365X has 384 shading units, compared to 320 on the R7 240. This difference contributes to its higher FP32 throughput of 633.6 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS.

Q: Do both cards use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on GCN 1.0 architecture, use a 28 nm TSMC process, and feature 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Q: What memory configurations do they use?

A: The R7 M365X uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 240 uses 2 GB of DDR3 with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. Both have a 128-bit bus.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 M365X dominates across every measurable compute scenario. Its OpenCL score of 5939 outstrips the R7 240's 5063 by 17.3%, reflecting substantial advantages in shading throughput, texture rate, and memory bandwidth. The M365X also has a Vulkan score of 4893, a capability the R7 240 lacks entirely in the dataset.

For workloads that stress memory bandwidth, the M365X is the clear pick. Its GDDR5 memory delivers 64.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s on the R7 240 — a 122% bandwidth advantage. This matters for texture-heavy scenes, larger framebuffers, and compute kernels that stream data. The R7 240’s DDR3 memory, while double the capacity at 2 GB, cannot compensate for the M365X’s more than double bandwidth.

The R7 240 does win on power consumption and physical footprint. It draws just 30 W with no power connectors required and a suggested PSU of 200 W, whereas the M365X has no listed TDP. The R7 240 is also a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, making it more suitable for compact builds. Its display output suite (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA) is specified, while the M365X lists no display outputs.

In raw compute, the M365X wins every category: pixel rate (6.600 GPixel/s vs 6.240 GPixel/s), texture rate (19.80 GTexel/s vs 15.60 GTexel/s), and FP32 (633.6 GFLOPS vs 499.2 GFLOPS). The R7 240’s only outright win is memory capacity, offering 2 GB versus 1 GB.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same GCN 1.0 architecture, but they are distinct chips. The R7 M365X uses the "Litho" chip, while the R7 240 uses "Oland." Despite different chip names, both are fabricated on the same 28 nm TSMC process with identical transistor counts (950 million) and die size (77 mm²). Transistor density is likewise identical at 12.3M per mm².

The compute architecture differs in core counts. The M365X has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the M365X has 20% more shading units and TMUs, while ROP counts are equal. The M365X’s extra cores directly translate to its higher fill rates and compute throughput.

Memory architecture is the biggest differentiator. The M365X pairs GDDR5 memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) with a 128-bit bus for 64.00 GB/s. The R7 240 uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on the same 128-bit bus, yielding just 28.80 GB/s. The M365X’s memory clock is 11% higher, but the GDDR5 versus DDR3 type difference accounts for most of the bandwidth gap.

Both cards support identical API levels: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The M365X belongs to the Gem System (R7 M300) generation, while the R7 240 is from Volcanic Islands (R7 200). The M365X’s predecessor is Solar System and successor is Polaris Mobile; the R7 240’s predecessor is Sea Islands and successor is Pirate Islands.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M365X | AMD Radeon R7 240 |

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

| Chip | Litho | Oland |

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

| Base Clock | Not specified | 730 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 780 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 320 |

| TMUs | 24 | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.600 GPixel/s | 6.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 19.80 GTexel/s | 15.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 633.6 GFLOPS | 499.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 30 W |

| Slot Width | Not specified | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 200 W |

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

| Length | Not specified | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Height | Not specified | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

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

| Predecessor | Solar System | Sea Islands |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Pirate Islands |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 69 USD |

Both cards share the same bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistors (950 million), die size (77 mm²), ROPs (8), and API support. The M365X was released roughly 19 months after the R7 240.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available comparison is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The R7 M365X scores 5939 against the R7 240’s 5063, a 17.3% win for the M365X. This margin is consistent with the underlying hardware differences: the M365X has 20% more shading units and 20% more TMUs, plus 122% more memory bandwidth. The 17.3% benchmark gap is slightly less than the shading unit advantage suggests, indicating that memory bandwidth helps more in some workloads than others.

Contextualizing against nearest rivals, the M365X’s 5939 OpenCL score is well above its average of 5416. Its closest competitor, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000, averages 5467 — the M365X’s peak score beats that by 8.6%. The R7 240’s 5063 score exactly matches its average, putting it on par with the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063, 0% delta) and slightly ahead of the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034, 0.6% higher) and AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018, 0.9% higher). The R7 240 also leads the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics by 1.3%.

The M365X also records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4893. The R7 240 has no Vulkan benchmark entry, meaning the M365X offers a verified Vulkan path where the R7 240's performance is undocumented. This could matter for modern titles leveraging Vulkan, though both cards support the Vulkan 1.2.170 API specification.

In the wins tally, the M365X takes 1 win with 0 for the R7 240. The margin of victory (17.3%) is substantial, not a marginal edge. The R7 240’s only statistical advantage is its average score being closer to its nearest rivals, with a 0% delta to the R7 M340, suggesting it sits in a tightly contested performance band.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X is the superior GPU on every measured performance axis. Its 17.3% OpenCL win over the R7 240 is backed by a 20% shading unit advantage, 20% texture unit advantage, and 122% memory bandwidth advantage. For any compute workload, the M365X is the clear choice.

Choose the R7 M365X if you prioritize raw compute, memory bandwidth, or Vulkan performance. Its 633.6 GFLOPS FP32 throughput, 19.80 GTexel/s texture rate, and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth place it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. It also has a verified Vulkan score of 4893, which the R7 240 cannot match. The M365X’s 5939 OpenCL peak outperforms its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467 average), by 8.6%.

Choose the R7 240 if you need a low-power, compact card with more memory. It draws only 30 W with no power connectors, fits in a single slot at 168 mm length, and offers 2 GB of VRAM — double the M365X’s 1 GB. Its suggested PSU of 200 W makes it suitable for modest systems. The R7 240 also has a defined display output set (DVI, HDMI 1.4a, VGA) and a launch MSRP of 69 USD. However, its 28.80 GB/s bandwidth and 499.2 GFLOPS FP32 place it in the 30th percentile, and its 5063 OpenCL score matches the AMD Radeon R7 M340 exactly.

The data is unambiguous: the M365X wins the compute battle by a wide margin. The R7 240’s advantages are limited to capacity, power, and physical dimensions. For most users, the M365X’s performance lead will matter more than the R7 240’s lower power draw or larger memory pool. The R7 240 is a legacy part from 2013, while the M365X is a 2015 mobile-oriented part with a newer generation designation. Both are end-of-life, but the M365X remains the stronger performer.