AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA GeForce 840M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M and AMD Radeon R7 240 are both end-of-life, 28 nm mobile-oriented graphics solutions from the 2013-2014 era, but they approach their respective performance targets with fundamentally different architectures and specifications. The benchmark data shows a clear, if narrow, overall winner in the NVIDIA GeForce 840M, which holds a 13.8% advantage in the single available head-to-head test, yet the R7 240 counters with a wider memory bus and a distinct feature set that make it more than a mere footnote in the comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M scores 5,764 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5,063 points, giving the NVIDIA part a 13.8% performance lead. This is a substantial margin in a compute-focused workload like OpenCL, indicating that the 840M’s higher shader count and more efficient Maxwell architecture translate into real-world throughput advantages. The delta is large enough to be considered a decisive win for the 840M, not a marginal one.

Looking at the broader context, the 840M’s average benchmark score is 5,322, which places it at the 31st percentile of all GPUs. The R7 240’s average score is 5,063, putting it at the 30th percentile. The difference in percentile ranking is minimal — a single percentage point — but the raw score gap remains consistent with the head-to-head result. The 840M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (average score 5,317, deltaPct 0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (average score 5,308, deltaPct 0.3%), and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (average score 5,358, deltaPct -0.7%). This places the 840M in a tightly packed cluster of similar-performing parts, where a 0.7% swing separates the top from the bottom. The R7 240’s nearest rivals are equally tight, with the AMD Radeon R7 M340 matching its 5,063 score exactly (deltaPct 0%), and the AMD FirePro W4170M trailing by 0.6% with a score of 5,034.

The Geekbench Vulkan test provides additional data for the 840M alone, where it scores 4,880, but no comparable Vulkan score exists for the R7 240. This absence of data means the Vulkan comparison cannot be quantified, but it does indicate that the 840M has a more modern API stack, which may translate into better performance in Vulkan-based titles. In terms of the win count, the 840M takes 1 win out of 1 head-to-head benchmark, while the R7 240 takes 0. The data consistently favors the NVIDIA part, though the R7 240’s lower score does not make it a poor performer; rather, it sits just 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (average score 4,998), which is an integrated solution.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M is built on the Maxwell architecture, specifically the GM108S chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon R7 240 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Oland chip, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with fewer transistors — 950 million — in the same 77 mm² die, resulting in a slightly lower density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The die size is identical, but the transistor allocation differs, with NVIDIA packing 7.4% more transistors into the same area.

The shader configuration diverges significantly. The 840M has 384 shading units, 16 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The R7 240, in contrast, has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the 840M has 20% more shading units, which directly drives its higher compute throughput, but the R7 240 has 25% more TMUs, which could aid in texture-heavy workloads. The ROP count is identical at 8, so pixel fill rates are tied to clock speeds rather than unit counts. The 840M’s pixel rate is 8.992 GPixel/s, while the R7 240’s is 6.240 GPixel/s, a 44% advantage for NVIDIA. Texture rate favors the 840M as well, at 17.98 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s, a 15.3% edge. Floating-point performance (FP32) is where the gap widens most: the 840M delivers 863.2 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS for the R7 240, making the 840M 73% faster on paper.

Clock speeds are another differentiating factor. The 840M runs at a base clock of 1029 MHz with a boost up to 1124 MHz. The R7 240 operates at a much lower base of 730 MHz, boosting to 780 MHz. This difference of roughly 300 MHz at base and 344 MHz at boost explains much of the performance delta, as the 840M’s higher clocks amplify its already superior shader count. The memory subsystems also differ: the 840M uses a 64-bit bus with DDR3 memory at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 16.02 GB/s. The R7 240 uses a 128-bit bus with DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The R7 240’s bandwidth is 79.8% higher, a substantial advantage for memory-intensive operations, even though its compute throughput is lower.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M has an average benchmark score of 5,322, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5,063. The 840M leads by 5.1% in average score.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M scores 5,764, and the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5,063. The 840M wins by 13.8%, which is the only head-to-head benchmark available.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 has a memory bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s, which is significantly higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 840M’s 16.02 GB/s. This is due to the R7 240’s 128-bit bus versus the 840M’s 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M has 384 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 has 320 shading units. The 840M has 20% more shading units, contributing to its higher FP32 performance of 863.2 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the API support differences?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Radeon R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 840M has a newer Vulkan version.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M has 1,020 million transistors, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 has 950 million transistors. Both are on the same 28 nm TSMC process and have the same 77 mm² die size.

Specification Differences

The following table outlines the key differences between the two GPUs based solely on the data provided:

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 840M | AMD Radeon R7 240 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GM108S | Oland |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 950 million |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1029 MHz | 730 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.02 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 320 |

| TMUs | 16 | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.992 GPixel/s | 6.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.98 GTexel/s | 15.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 863.2 GFLOPS | 499.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 33 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None | 200 W |

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

| Dimensions | N/A | 168 mm (6.6 inches) length, 69 mm (2.7 inches) height |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

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

| Release Date | 2014-03-11 | 2013-10-07 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 700M | Sea Islands |

| Successor | GeForce 900M | Pirate Islands |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 69 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M is the clear winner in compute-bound scenarios. Its 13.8% OpenCL lead, combined with a 73% advantage in FP32 throughput and a 44% higher pixel rate, makes it the superior choice for general-purpose GPU compute, shader-heavy applications, and any workload that leverages the higher shading unit count. The 840M also benefits from a higher boost clock (1124 MHz vs 780 MHz) and a newer Vulkan API version (1.4 vs 1.2.170), which may offer better performance in modern Vulkan titles. Its lower TDP of 33 W versus the R7 240’s 30 W is a negligible difference, but the 840M’s IGP form factor suggests it is designed for integration into notebooks, where space is at a premium.

The AMD Radeon R7 240 wins in memory bandwidth and texture throughput. With a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, it offers 79.8% more bandwidth than the 840M, which is critical for texture-heavy games and applications that frequently access large data sets. Its TMU count of 20, versus 16 on the 840M, gives it a theoretical edge in texture filtering, even though its texture rate is lower due to clocks. The R7 240 also has a more flexible form factor as a single-slot card with dedicated display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA), making it a better fit for desktop systems where the 840M’s portable-device-dependent outputs are not applicable. The R7 240’s suggested PSU of 200 W indicates a low system power draw, and its launch MSRP was 69 USD, though price comparisons are not part of this analysis.

In terms of ecosystem fit, the 840M’s Maxwell architecture is more modern, but the R7 240’s GCN 1.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is a slightly higher feature level than the 840M’s DirectX 12 (11_0). For users prioritizing raw compute and newer API versions, the 840M is the better pick. For users needing higher memory bandwidth and a desktop-friendly card with standard outputs, the R7 240 holds its own. The data shows a split: compute and pixel fill favor NVIDIA, while memory bandwidth and texture unit count favor AMD. The 840M’s single win in the head-to-head benchmark, however, tips the overall verdict in its favor.