AMD Radeon R7 240 vs AMD Radeon R7 M465 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two AMD parts. The AMD Radeon R7 M465 wins the only recorded head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL workload, with a score of 5841 against the Radeon R7 240's 5063. That is a 15.4% advantage, a meaningful gap for compute-oriented tasks such as OpenCL acceleration.

The Radeon R7 M465 also holds a higher position in the overall GPU percentile ranking. It sits at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile. This means the M465 outperforms a slightly larger share of the GPU population in aggregate benchmark scores.

For the Radeon R7 240, its only clear win is in the area of physical specifications rather than raw performance. It carries a lower power draw at 30 W, a single-slot cooler, no power connectors, and a 200 W suggested PSU. These attributes make it a simpler drop-in card for low-power systems, but the performance data does not favor it in any recorded benchmark.

In practical terms, the M465 is the compute-focused winner. The R7 240 is the efficiency-focused option, but only in the sense of system integration, not in benchmark scores. The recorded data shows no test where the R7 240 beats the M465.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations despite both being built by AMD on a 28 nm TSMC process. The Radeon R7 M465 uses the Topaz chip based on GCN 3.0 architecture, while the Radeon R7 240 uses the Oland chip based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture. This generational gap explains several performance differences.

The M465 packs more silicon. It contains 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4M per mm². The R7 240 contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 12.3M per mm². The M465 has roughly 63% more transistors and a 62% larger die, which translates directly into more compute resources.

Shader configurations differ as well. The M465 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The M465 thus offers 20% more shaders and TMUs, while ROP counts are identical.

Memory subsystems are notably different. The M465 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 36.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 240 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s. The M465 achieves 25% higher bandwidth despite a narrower bus, thanks to faster GDDR5 memory clocked at 4.5 Gbps effective versus 1800 Mbps effective on the R7 240.

Clock behavior also diverges. Both GPUs share a 730 MHz base clock, but the M465 boosts to 1024 MHz while the R7 240 only reaches 780 MHz. That 244 MHz boost advantage is substantial for the M465. Pixel rate on the M465 is 8.192 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s on the R7 240. Texture rate is 24.58 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 786.4 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS, a 57.5% advantage for the M465. The M465 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (786.4 GFLOPS), while the R7 240 has no recorded FP16 capability.

API support differs slightly. The M465 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M465 belongs to the Gem System generation (R7 M400 series), while the R7 240 belongs to Volcanic Islands (R7 200 series).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Radeon R7 M465 is the faster GPU by every recorded metric: 15.4% higher OpenCL score, higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, higher FP32 throughput, more shaders, and faster memory bandwidth. Its 33rd percentile ranking versus the R7 240's 30th percentile reinforces this.

Anyone choosing between these two for compute tasks should select the M465. The benchmark gap is consistent across architectural advantages, from the newer GCN 3.0 design to the larger transistor budget and higher boost clock.

The R7 240 nevertheless has a niche. Its 30 W TDP, single-slot design, lack of power connectors, and 200 W suggested PSU make it a candidate for very constrained systems where power delivery and physical space are the primary concerns. Its 168 mm length and 69 mm height are modest. It also has display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA) listed, while the M465 has no recorded display output configuration.

The M465 is a mobile-oriented part with no recorded TDP or slot width, suggesting it targets laptops or small-form-factor designs where the R7 240's desktop card form factor does not apply. For a desktop build with power headroom, the R7 240 can work, but the data shows it is slower in every measured benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5841 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063. The M465 leads by 15.4%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Radeon R7 M465 provides 36.00 GB/s using GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. The Radeon R7 240 provides 28.80 GB/s using DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. The M465 has 25% higher bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same DirectX support?

A: No. The Radeon R7 M465 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Radeon R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Radeon R7 M465 has 384 shading units, compared to 320 on the Radeon R7 240. The M465 also has 24 TMUs versus 20, while both have 8 ROPs.

Q: What is the TDP of the Radeon R7 240?

A: The Radeon R7 240 is rated at 30 W, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 200 W. The Radeon R7 M465 has no recorded TDP in the database.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all other GPUs?

A: The Radeon R7 M465 sits at the 33rd percentile, while the Radeon R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile. Both are low-to-mid range parts by this measure.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison between these two GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The Radeon R7 M465 scores 5841, and the Radeon R7 240 scores 5063. The M465 wins by 15.4%. This is the only recorded head-to-head result, and it favors the M465 decisively.

Looking at the underlying compute metrics, the M465's advantage is consistent. Its FP32 throughput of 786.4 GFLOPS is 57.5% higher than the R7 240's 499.2 GFLOPS. Texture rate is 24.58 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s, a 57.6% lead. Pixel rate is 8.192 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s, a 31.3% lead. The M465 also boosts 244 MHz higher (1024 MHz versus 780 MHz) over the same 730 MHz base clock.

The nearest rival data adds context. The M465's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R5 M435, which scores 5859, just 0.3% ahead. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 scores 5929 (1.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon HD 8730M scores 5955 (1.9% ahead). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti scores 5731, which is 1.9% behind the M465. This places the M465 in a tight cluster with slightly better and slightly worse parts.

The R7 240's rivals are lower-scoring. Its closest match is the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at 5063 (0% delta), followed by the AMD FirePro W4170M at 5034 (0.6% behind), the AMD Radeon R5 M430 at 5018 (0.9% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4998 (1.3% behind). The R7 240 sits at the top of this lower tier, but that tier is still 15.4% below the M465.

In short, the M465 does not just win; it wins by a margin that places it in a different performance class. The R7 240 competes with integrated and low-end mobile parts, while the M465 competes with entry-level discrete desktop cards like the GTX 550 Ti.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the recorded data.

| Field | AMD Radeon R7 M465 | AMD Radeon R7 240 |

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

| Chip | Topaz | Oland |

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Gem System (R7 M400) | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 77 mm² |

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

| Boost Clock | 1024 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1125 MHz, 4.5 Gbps effective | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 36.00 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 320 |

| TMUs | 24 | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.192 GPixel/s | 6.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.58 GTexel/s | 15.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 786.4 GFLOPS | 499.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not recorded |

| TDP | Not recorded | 30 W |

| Slot Width | Not recorded | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not recorded | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 200 W |

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

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

| Dimensions | Not recorded | 168 mm / 6.6 inches length, 69 mm / 2.7 inches height |

| Release Date | 2016-05-14 | 2013-10-07 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Sea Islands |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Pirate Islands |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 69 USD |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 5841 | 5063 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 33 | 30 |

Shared specifications include the 28 nm TSMC process, 730 MHz base clock, 2 GB memory size, 8 ROPs, PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170, and end-of-life production status. The R7 240 has a launch MSRP of 69 USD, while the M465 has no recorded MSRP.