AMD Radeon R7 240 vs AMD Radeon RX 6400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes a single shared benchmark between these two cards, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 32,011 points against 5,063 for the AMD Radeon R7 240. That is a 532.3% advantage for the RX 6400, meaning it delivers roughly six times the compute performance in this workload. The win count stands at 1 for the RX 6400 and 0 for the R7 240, so there is no benchmark category in the database where the older card comes out ahead.

Placing these scores in context, the RX 6400 sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 6,001. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M averages 6,000 (0% delta), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server averages 5,996 (0.1% delta), and the AMD FirePro W4100 averages 5,987 (0.2% delta). The RX 6400 is effectively at parity with these cards in overall average score, despite its overwhelming lead over the R7 240 in the single shared test. The R7 240, by contrast, sits at the 30th percentile with an average score of 5,063, and its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at exactly 5,063 (0% delta), followed by the AMD FirePro W4170M at 5,034 (0.6% delta) and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 at 5,018 (0.9% delta).

The RX 6400 also has additional benchmark entries that do not appear for the R7 240. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 176. In PassMark tests, it reaches 7,673 in G3D, 2,812 in GPU Compute, 722 in G2D, 93 in DirectX 9, 70 in DirectX 11, 54 in DirectX 10, and 30 in DirectX 12. The Geekbench Vulkan score is 16,372. These figures show a card that is consistently functional across a broad range of modern and legacy API tests, while the R7 240 has only the one OpenCL result recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 32,011 points, which is 532.3% higher than the R7 240's 5,063 points.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall database standing?

A: The RX 6400 sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 6,001, while the R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile with an average score of 5,063.

Q: What is the closest rival to each card according to average score?

A: The RX 6400's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6,000 (0% delta), and the R7 240's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at 5,063 (0% delta).

Q: Does the R7 240 win any recorded benchmark against the RX 6400?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows 1 win for the RX 6400 and 0 wins for the R7 240.

Q: What API levels does each card support?

A: The RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How does memory bandwidth differ between the two?

A: The RX 6400 has 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth over a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6, while the R7 240 has 28.80 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of DDR3.

Architecture Differences

The RX 6400 is built on the Navi 24 chip using RDNA 2.0 architecture, part of the Navi II (RX 6000) generation. It is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 5,400 million transistors packed into a 107 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm². The R7 240 uses the Oland chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. It is built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, for a density of 12.3 million per mm². The process node difference is enormous: 6 nm versus 28 nm, which helps explain the RX 6400's far higher transistor count in only 30 mm² more die area.

The compute resources differ sharply. The RX 6400 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores at all. The pixel rate is 74.27 GPixel/s for the RX 6400 versus 6.240 GPixel/s for the R7 240. Texture rate is 111.4 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 3.565 TFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS. The RX 6400 also supports FP16 at 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1), while the R7 240 has no recorded FP16 capability. Ray tracing support is a functional generational leap, since the R7 240 predates that feature entirely.

The memory subsystems are also fundamentally different. The RX 6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, yielding 128.0 GB/s. The R7 240 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective speed, yielding 28.80 GB/s. Although the R7 240 has double the bus width, the vastly slower memory type and clock rate leave it with less than a quarter of the bandwidth. The RX 6400 also supports PCIe 4.0 x4, while the R7 240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RX 6400 has a base clock of 1923 MHz, a boost clock of 2321 MHz, and a game clock of 2039 MHz. The R7 240 has a base clock of 730 MHz and a boost clock of 780 MHz, with no game clock recorded. Memory speed is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for the RX 6400 versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the R7 240. Memory size is 4 GB versus 2 GB, bus width is 64-bit versus 128-bit, and bandwidth is 128.0 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s.

The RX 6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with no RT cores. Pixel rate is 74.27 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s, texture rate is 111.4 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 3.565 TFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS. The FP16 rating for the RX 6400 is 7.130 TFLOPS, while the R7 240 has none listed.

Power figures differ as well. The RX 6400 has a TDP of 53 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the R7 240 has a TDP of 30 W with a suggested PSU of 200 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors, but the RX 6400 draws nearly double the power. The RX 6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4, the R7 240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RX 6400, versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA for the R7 240. The R7 240 has recorded physical dimensions of 168 mm length and 69 mm height; the RX 6400 has none listed. The RX 6400 was released on 2022-01-18, while the R7 240 was released on 2013-10-07.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6400 wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its 532.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the only direct head-to-head result, but its additional benchmark entries show strength across multiple API generations. It scores 7,673 in PassMark G3D, which reflects general 3D rendering performance, and 2,812 in GPU Compute, which indicates strong general-purpose compute capability. Its Vulkan score of 16,372 and DirectX 12 Ultimate support make it suitable for modern gaming workloads, while its ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration that the R7 240 cannot offer at all.

The R7 240 has no recorded wins. Its only benchmark score is the OpenCL result of 5,063, which places it below the RX 6400 by a massive margin. Its strengths are limited to what the specification sheet suggests: a lower 30 W TDP, no power connector requirement, and a 200 W suggested PSU make it an extremely low-power option. Its 128-bit memory bus is wider than the RX 6400's 64-bit bus, and its physical dimensions are recorded, but neither translates into a performance advantage in the data.

For users prioritizing compute throughput, modern API support, ray tracing, or high-resolution texture workloads, the RX 6400 is the clear choice. For users who need the absolute minimum power draw and have no performance expectations, the R7 240 remains a functional legacy part.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the superior card by every recorded metric. It leads the R7 240 by 532.3% in the only shared benchmark, holds a higher percentile ranking (35th versus 30th), and offers features the R7 240 lacks entirely, including ray tracing cores, FP16 support, and DirectX 12 Ultimate. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth is a generational leap over the R7 240's 2 GB of DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s. The RX 6400 also has a higher transistor density, a smaller process node, and a much larger compute pipeline.

The R7 240 is a legacy product from 2013, built on 28 nm with GCN 1.0. It consumes only 30 W and requires just a 200 W PSU, which makes it an option for systems with severe power constraints. It also has a wider 128-bit memory bus and a recorded physical footprint of 168 mm by 69 mm, but these specifications do not overcome its performance deficit. Its only benchmark score, 5,063 in OpenCL, is less than one-sixth of the RX 6400's score in the same test.

Anyone selecting between these two should choose the RX 6400 unless the absolute lowest power draw is the sole criterion. The RX 6400 delivers modern API support, ray tracing, and roughly six times the compute performance, all within a 53 W TDP. The R7 240 remains a functioning card for basic display output and low-intensity tasks, but the benchmark record shows no scenario where it outperforms the RX 6400.