AMD Radeon R7 240 vs Intel HD Graphics P530 Comparison

# AMD Radeon R7 240 vs Intel HD Graphics P530

The AMD Radeon R7 240 and Intel HD Graphics P530 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum: one is a discrete, single-slot card with dedicated memory, the other is an integrated processor graphics solution that borrows system memory. Benchmark data from the database shows the R7 240 takes the overall win in the only shared test, but the P530 counters with a more modern feature set and a dramatically lower power envelope. The R7 240 scores 5063 in Geekbench OpenCL, which places it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the P530 averages 4560 across OpenCL and Vulkan tests, landing in the 26th percentile. The delta between them is 11.3% in favor of the AMD card in OpenCL.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 240 wins on raw compute throughput in the recorded benchmarks. Its OpenCL score of 5063 surpasses the Intel HD Graphics P530's OpenCL result of 4549 by 11.3%, a decisive margin for a comparison between a low-end discrete card and an integrated solution. The R7 240 also holds advantages in pixel fill rate (6.240 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s) and FP32 performance (499.2 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS), which translates to better sustained performance in shader-heavy workloads.

The Intel HD Graphics P530 wins on efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is exactly half of the R7 240's 30 W TDP, and it requires no slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU rating. The P530 also supports Vulkan 1.3, a newer API version than the R7 240's Vulkan 1.2.170, and DirectX 12 (12_1) compared to the R7 240's DirectX 12 (11_1). For systems where power draw and physical footprint matter more than raw compute, the P530 is the clear choice. It also posts a Vulkan score of 4571, a test the R7 240 did not run, indicating broader benchmark coverage in the database.

Architecture Differences

The R7 240 is built on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Oland chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The GPU operates at a base clock of 730 MHz with a boost of 780 MHz, and it pairs 320 shading units with 20 texture mapping units and 8 render output units. Its 2 GB of DDR3 memory runs across a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth.

The Intel HD Graphics P530 uses Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture on the Skylake GT2 chip, manufactured on a 14 nm+ process at Intel. Its die size is 123 mm², notably larger than the AMD chip, though transistor count is not recorded in the database. The P530's base clock is 350 MHz with a boost of 1000 MHz, and it contains 192 shading units, 16 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. Memory is system shared, with bandwidth described as system dependent, meaning performance scales with the host platform's RAM configuration.

The R7 240's dedicated memory is a structural advantage: it does not compete with the CPU for bandwidth, and its 128-bit bus provides predictable throughput. The P530's memory subsystem is entirely dependent on the host system, which can be a bottleneck in memory-intensive tasks. However, the P530 supports FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a capability the R7 240 does not report, making it potentially better suited for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 against the Intel HD Graphics P530's 4549. That is an 11.3% advantage for the AMD card. In the context of their nearest rivals, the R7 240's score ties exactly with the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063, 0% delta) and edges out the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034, 0.6% ahead) and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018, 0.9% ahead). The P530's OpenCL score sits within a narrow band of its competitors: it trails the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621) by 1.3%, the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577) by 0.4%, and the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) by 0.2%, while leading the AMD FirePro W4190M (4505) by 1.2%.

The P530's Vulkan score of 4571 is nearly identical to its OpenCL result, differing by less than 0.5%, which suggests consistent performance across API types. The R7 240 has no Vulkan score in the database, so its API scaling cannot be assessed. The overall wins tally from the head-to-head section is 1 for the R7 240 and 0 for the P530, reflecting the single shared test. However, the P530's extra benchmark coverage and lower power draw indicate that the comparison is not one-sided.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 5063, which is 11.3% higher than the Intel HD Graphics P530's 4549. The R7 240 also produces 499.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 384.0 GFLOPS for the P530.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics P530 support newer graphics APIs?

A: Yes. The P530 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The R7 240 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The P530 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance relies on the host platform's RAM.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530. Its TDP is 15 W, exactly half of the R7 240's 30 W. The P530 is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no slot width or power connectors, while the R7 240 is a single-slot card requiring a 200 W suggested PSU.

Q: How do their pixel and texture rates compare?

A: The R7 240 has a pixel rate of 6.240 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 15.60 GTexel/s. The P530 has a pixel rate of 3.000 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 16.00 GTexel/s. The AMD card is over twice as fast in pixel throughput, while the Intel card is slightly ahead in texture rate.

Q: Where does each GPU rank among all GPUs?

A: The R7 240 sits in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, and the P530 sits in the 26th percentile. The R7 240's average benchmark score is 5063, while the P530's average is 4560.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 240 | Intel HD Graphics P530 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 9.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm+ (Intel) |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistors | 950 million | Not recorded |

| Base Clock | 730 MHz | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 780 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB DDR3 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 320 | 192 |

| TMUs | 20 | 16 |

| ROPs | 8 | 3 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.240 GPixel/s | 3.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 15.60 GTexel/s | 16.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 499.2 GFLOPS | 384.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not recorded | 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 30 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not applicable |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA | Motherboard Dependent |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2013-10-07 | 2015-08-31 |

| Launch MSRP | 69 USD | Not recorded |

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split: the AMD Radeon R7 240 is the faster GPU for compute workloads, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 is the better fit for power-constrained or space-constrained systems. The R7 240 leads by 11.3% in OpenCL performance, has double the pixel rate, and offers dedicated memory with a fixed bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. Its 320 shading units and 8 ROPs give it a structural advantage in rendering tasks that the P530 cannot overcome despite its higher boost clock of 1000 MHz.

The Intel HD Graphics P530, however, delivers 384.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance within a 15 W TDP, making it twice as efficient in performance-per-watt terms based on the recorded specs. Its Vulkan 1.3 support and DirectX 12 (12_1) compliance provide a more modern software foundation, and its FP16 capability at 768.0 GFLOPS opens up half-precision workloads that the R7 240 does not address. For users building a small form factor or battery-conscious system, the P530's IGP form factor eliminates the need for a separate card, a power connector, or a 200 W PSU recommendation.

For anyone who needs a discrete card with predictable memory performance and higher raw compute, the R7 240 is the choice from the recorded data. For anyone who prioritizes low power draw, modern API support, and integration, the P530 is the better option. The benchmark results indicate that the R7 240 is the stronger performer in the shared OpenCL test, but the P530's feature set and efficiency make it the more versatile solution in the right context.