AMD Radeon R7 240 vs AMD Radeon RX 560 Comparison

# FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 560 delivers 2.611 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 delivers 499.2 GFLOPS. That puts the RX 560 at roughly 5.2 times the FP32 throughput of the R7 240.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The R7 240 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, with 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 128-bit bus, but bandwidth jumps to 112.0 GB/s, roughly 3.9 times higher.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RX 560, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding 24.4M transistors per mm². The R7 240, on TSMC's 28 nm node, has 950 million transistors in 77 mm², for 12.3M per mm².

Q: What API feature levels does each card support?

A: The R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 560 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, giving it a more modern feature set.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The R7 240 has a 30 W TDP with a suggested 200 W power supply, while the RX 560 has a 75 W TDP with a suggested 250 W power supply. Neither card requires external power connectors.

Q: What is the release date gap between the two?

A: The R7 240 was released on October 7, 2013, while the RX 560 arrived on April 17, 2017, a gap of roughly three and a half years.

# Architecture Differences

The two cards belong to different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next architecture. The R7 240 uses the Oland chip, built on GCN 1.0, part of the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. The RX 560 uses the Polaris 21 chip, built on GCN 4.0, part of the Polaris (RX 500) generation. This architectural gap of three major revisions explains most of the performance disparity.

The fabrication process differs significantly. The R7 240 uses TSMC's 28 nm node, while the RX 560 uses GlobalFoundries' 14 nm node. This process shrink allows the RX 560 to pack 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, versus 950 million in 77 mm² for the R7 240. The transistor density nearly doubles, from 12.3M per mm² to 24.4M per mm².

The compute resources scale dramatically. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The RX 560 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is 3.2 times the shading units, 3.2 times the TMUs, and 2 times the ROPs.

Memory architecture diverges in type and speed. The R7 240 uses 2 GB of DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 560 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), yielding 112.0 GB/s. Both share a 128-bit memory bus, but the GDDR5 implementation delivers nearly four times the bandwidth.

Clock speeds also differ. The R7 240 runs at 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. The RX 560 runs at 1175 MHz base and 1275 MHz boost, roughly 60% higher at both points. Combined with the larger shader count, the pixel rate jumps from 6.240 GPixel/s to 20.40 GPixel/s, and the texture rate from 15.60 GTexel/s to 81.60 GTexel/s.

API support reflects the newer architecture. The R7 240 caps at DirectX 12 (11_1), while the RX 560 reaches DirectX 12 (12_0). Vulkan support improves from 1.2.170 to 1.3. OpenGL 4.6 is common to both. The RX 560 also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, whereas the R7 240 has no listed FP16 capability.

Physical design differs too. The R7 240 is a single-slot card, 168 mm long and 69 mm tall, with outputs for DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and VGA. The RX 560 is dual-slot, 170 mm long, with DVI, HDMI 2.0b, and DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The newer card's HDMI and DisplayPort versions support higher resolutions and refresh rates.

# Where Each One Wins

The R7 240 wins in power efficiency and physical footprint. At 30 W TDP, it requires no external power connectors and only a 200 W suggested power supply. Its single-slot design and shorter 168 mm length make it suitable for compact builds. The RX 560, at 75 W TDP, needs a 250 W power supply and occupies a dual-slot profile, though it still avoids external power connectors.

The R7 240 also wins on legacy display support. Its VGA output is absent on the RX 560, which may matter for older monitors or industrial applications. The HDMI 1.4a on the R7 240 is sufficient for basic 1080p output, while the RX 560's HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a enable higher bandwidth connections.

The RX 560 wins in every performance metric. Its FP32 compute of 2.611 TFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS is a 5.2x advantage. Memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s is a 3.9x advantage. Pixel rate of 20.40 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s is a 3.3x advantage. Texture rate of 81.60 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s is a 5.2x advantage.

The RX 560 wins in memory capacity and type. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 doubles the capacity and vastly improves bandwidth over the 2 GB of DDR3. For modern workloads that exceed 2 GB, the R7 240 will hit a hard ceiling.

The RX 560 wins in API modernity. DirectX 12 (12_0) support, Vulkan 1.3, and FP16 compute give it access to newer rendering techniques and compute workloads. The R7 240's DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170 are functionally older.

The RX 560 wins in raw benchmark scores. In the single head-to-head test available, Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 560 scores 16,472 versus the R7 240's 5,063, a 69.3% advantage. The RX 560 also has additional benchmark data across PassMark DirectX 9/10/11/12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute tests, while the R7 240 only has the one OpenCL score.

# Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: Oland vs. Polaris 21
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs. GCN 4.0
• Generation: Volcanic Islands (R7 200) vs. Polaris (RX 500)
• Process node: 28 nm vs. 14 nm
• Foundry: TSMC vs. GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 950 million vs. 3,000 million
• Die size: 77 mm² vs. 123 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.3M / mm² vs. 24.4M / mm²
• Base clock: 730 MHz vs. 1175 MHz
• Boost clock: 780 MHz vs. 1275 MHz
• Memory clock: 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) vs. 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 2 GB vs. 4 GB
• Memory type: DDR3 vs. GDDR5
• Memory bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s vs. 112.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 320 vs. 1,024
• TMUs: 20 vs. 64
• ROPs: 8 vs. 16
• Pixel rate: 6.240 GPixel/s vs. 20.40 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 15.60 GTexel/s vs. 81.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 499.2 GFLOPS vs. 2.611 TFLOPS
• FP16: Not listed vs. 2.611 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 30 W vs. 75 W
• Slot width: Single-slot vs. Dual-slot
• Suggested PSU: 200 W vs. 250 W
• Display outputs: HDMI 1.4a, VGA vs. HDMI 2.0b, DisplayPort 1.4a (both have DVI)
• DirectX: 12 (11_1) vs. 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 vs. 1.3
• Dimensions: 168 mm x 69 mm vs. 170 mm (height not listed for RX 560)
• Release date: 2013-10-07 vs. 2017-04-17
• Predecessor: Sea Islands vs. Arctic Islands
• Successor: Pirate Islands vs. Vega
• Launch MSRP: 69 USD vs. 99 USD

Fields that are identical: manufacturer (AMD), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), memory bus width (128 bit), OpenGL version (4.6), and production status (End-of-life for both).

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD Radeon RX 560 scores 16,472 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5,063 points. The RX 560 wins by a margin of 69.3%, which is the recorded delta. This is a decisive victory that reflects the architectural gap between GCN 1.0 and GCN 4.0.

To put the R7 240's score in context, its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at 5,063 points (0% delta), the AMD FirePro W4170M at 5,034 points (0.6% behind), the AMD Radeon R5 M430 at 5,018 points (0.9% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4,998 points (1.3% behind). The R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs in the database, meaning it outperforms roughly 30% of recorded graphics processors. Its average benchmark score is 5,063.

The RX 560's OpenCL score of 16,472 is more than three times the R7 240's. Its nearest rivals, based on average benchmark scores, are the AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4,577 points (0.2% behind), the Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4,560 points (0.2% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4,621 points (1.1% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4,628 points (1.3% ahead). The RX 560 sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score is 4,569, which is lower than its OpenCL score because the database also includes other tests where it scores lower.

The RX 560 has a broader benchmark footprint. Beyond OpenCL, it records PassMark DirectX 9 at 57, DirectX 10 at 16, DirectX 11 at 25, DirectX 12 at 21, G2D at 485, G3D at 3,671, and GPU compute at 1,437. It also has a Geekbench Metal score of 18,941. The R7 240 has no recorded scores in these tests, so no comparison is possible there.

The wins are one-sided. The RX 560 wins the only shared benchmark, and the R7 240 has no test where it comes out ahead. The performance gap in raw numbers is stark: 5.2x in FP32, 3.9x in memory bandwidth, 3.3x in pixel rate, and 5.2x in texture rate. The R7 240's only advantages are in power draw, physical size, and legacy VGA output. For any compute or graphics workload, the RX 560 is the clear choice, provided the system can accommodate its 75 W TDP and dual-slot design.