AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA GeForce 930M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only one common benchmark between these two mobile and desktop parts: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M scores 5046. That is a delta of just 0.3% in favor of the AMD part. In practical terms, the two are virtually indistinguishable in this compute workload. The margin is within run-to-run variance, and no workload would meaningfully separate them based on this single result.

The GeForce 930M does have an additional recorded benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 3729. The R7 240 has no Vulkan result in the database, so the comparison there is one-sided. That absence is itself informative: the AMD card supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA part lists Vulkan 1.4, but the only recorded cross-platform test shows near parity.

Looking at the broader field, the R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the 930M sits at the 26th percentile. The AMD card's average benchmark score is 5063, matching exactly its OpenCL result. The NVIDIA part's average is 4388, pulled down by the lower Vulkan score. This means the 930M's OpenCL performance is actually its stronger showing, while its Vulkan result drags the average down.

The nearest rivals for each part reinforce how tightly grouped this performance tier is. The R7 240's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M340, with an identical average score of 5063 and a 0% delta. The FirePro W4170M trails by 0.6%, the R5 M430 by 0.9%, and the Radeon R7 Graphics by 1.3%. The 930M's nearest rival is the GeForce GT 645M, which is 0.5% faster, followed by the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 at 0.7% slower, the RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 1.2% slower (a curious entry in this low-end tier), and the FirePro W2100 at 2.2% slower.

The head-to-head count is a clean 1 win for AMD, 0 for NVIDIA. But that single win is a 0.3% margin, which is effectively a tie. The data does not support declaring a decisive victor on raw compute alone.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 240 wins the only direct comparison, the OpenCL benchmark, by a hair. Its 5063 score edges out the 930M's 5046. That is the entirety of the head-to-head dataset. If the question is which part produces higher raw compute throughput in OpenCL, the answer is the AMD card, but the advantage is so slim it would not be perceptible in real applications.

The GeForce 930M wins in the Vulkan category, but only because it has a recorded score and the R7 240 does not. The 930M's Vulkan result of 3729 is significantly lower than its OpenCL result, suggesting that this architecture is less efficient under Vulkan or that the driver implementation at the time was not optimized. The R7 240 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, so it could theoretically run Vulkan workloads, but the database contains no measurement.

For memory bandwidth, the R7 240 has a clear theoretical edge. Its 128-bit bus and 900 MHz memory yield 28.80 GB/s, more than double the 930M's 12.80 GB/s from a 64-bit bus at 800 MHz. This matters for texture-heavy workloads and any task that streams large data sets through the memory subsystem. The NVIDIA part compensates with more shading units (384 vs. 320) and more texture units (24 vs. 20), but its lower clock speeds (549 MHz base and boost vs. 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost) cap its throughput.

Pixel fill rate favors AMD: 6.240 GPixel/s vs. 4.392 GPixel/s. Texture fill rate also favors AMD: 15.60 GTexel/s vs. 13.18 GTexel/s. FP32 compute favors AMD: 499.2 GFLOPS vs. 421.6 GFLOPS. In every raw throughput metric except raw unit counts, the R7 240 leads. The 930M's advantage is architectural efficiency: it achieves 421.6 GFLOPS from 384 cores at 549 MHz, while the R7 240 needs 320 cores at a much higher clock to reach its 499.2 GFLOPS.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The R7 240 uses the Oland chip based on Graphics Core Next 1.0, part of the Volcanic Islands generation (R7 200 family). The 930M uses the GM108S chip based on Maxwell, part of the GeForce 900M family. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and both have a die size of 77 mm².

Transistor counts differ slightly. The R7 240 packs 950 million transistors, while the 930M has 1,020 million. This yields a transistor density of 12.3M per mm² for AMD and 13.2M per mm² for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA chip packs more transistors into the same area, but the AMD chip uses them differently.

The R7 240 offers 320 shading units, 20 texture units, and 8 ROPs. The 930M offers 384 shading units, 24 texture units, and 8 ROPs. NVIDIA's architecture achieves higher efficiency per clock, but AMD compensates with significantly higher clocks: 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost versus 549 MHz for both base and boost on the NVIDIA part. The 930M has no boost headroom; its clock is locked at 549 MHz.

Memory configuration is a major divergence. The R7 240 uses a 128-bit memory bus with DDR3 at 900 MHz, yielding 28.80 GB/s. The 930M uses a 64-bit bus with DDR3 at 800 MHz, yielding 12.80 GB/s. Both have 2 GB of memory, but the AMD part has double the bandwidth. This is a fundamental architectural difference that favors AMD in bandwidth-bound scenarios.

API support differs subtly. The R7 240 lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 930M lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part supports a higher DirectX feature level, while the NVIDIA part supports a newer Vulkan version. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Form factor and integration differ completely. The R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card with no power connectors, 168 mm long and 69 mm high, with display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA. The 930M is an integrated GPU (IGP) for portable devices, with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The R7 240 has a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the 930M has no such figure, reflecting its role as a laptop component.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930M scores 5046. The AMD part leads by 0.3%, which is within measurement noise.

Q: Does the GeForce 930M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the 930M has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 3729 and lists Vulkan 1.4 support. The R7 240 lists Vulkan 1.2.170 support, but the database has no Vulkan benchmark result for it.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The R7 240 has 28.80 GB/s from a 128-bit bus, while the 930M has 12.80 GB/s from a 64-bit bus. The AMD part offers more than double the bandwidth.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The R7 240 runs at 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. The 930M runs at 549 MHz for both base and boost, with no dynamic clock headroom.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The 930M has 384 shading units, compared to 320 on the R7 240. Despite fewer units, the AMD part achieves higher FP32 throughput (499.2 GFLOPS vs. 421.6 GFLOPS) due to its higher clocks.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The R7 240 was released in October 2013, and the 930M was released in March 2015.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every measurable specification:

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 240 | NVIDIA GeForce 930M |

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

| Chip | Oland | GM108S |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |

| Generation | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) | GeForce 900M |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,020 million |

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

| Base Clock | 730 MHz | 549 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 780 MHz | 549 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective | 800 MHz / 1600 Mbps effective |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 12.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 384 |

| Texture Units | 20 | 24 |

| ROPs | 8 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.240 GPixel/s | 4.392 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 15.60 GTexel/s | 13.18 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 499.2 GFLOPS | 421.6 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

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

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2013-10-07 | 2015-03-12 |

| Predecessor | Sea Islands | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Pirate Islands | GeForce 10 Mobile |

Both use the same 28 nm process at TSMC, the same 77 mm² die size, 2 GB of DDR3 memory, no power connectors, and are end-of-life products. The R7 240 has a launch MSRP of 69 USD.

The Verdict

The data paints a picture of two GPUs from different eras that happen to land in the same performance tier. The R7 240, released in October 2013, uses a wider memory bus and higher clocks to compensate for its older architecture. The 930M, released in March 2015, uses a smaller bus and lower clocks but more shaders and a more efficient Maxwell design.

For desktop users with a PCIe slot, the R7 240 is the clear choice. It wins the only direct benchmark, offers more than double the memory bandwidth, higher pixel and texture rates, and higher FP32 compute. It also has physical display outputs and a single-slot form factor that fits in standard desktop cases. Its 30 W TDP means no external power connector is needed, and a 200 W PSU suffices.

For laptop users, the 930M is the only option of the two, since it is an integrated part for portable devices. Its 33 W TDP and IGP form factor mean it is not a user-replaceable component. The Vulkan 1.4 support gives it a more modern API profile, and its Vulkan score of 3729 provides some indication of compute capability under that API, though no comparable data exists for the R7 240.

The percentile rankings suggest the R7 240 is slightly better positioned: 30th percentile versus 26th. The nearest rival data confirms both parts are surrounded by similar-performing hardware, with deltas under 2.2% across all listed competitors. Neither part is a performance outlier; both sit in a dense cluster of low-end GPUs.

The decision comes down to form factor and use case. The R7 240 offers better raw metrics and a direct benchmark win, making it the stronger choice for any desktop workload. The 930M exists solely as a laptop component, and its only recorded advantages are a newer Vulkan version and more shading units. For anyone building or upgrading a desktop system, the R7 240 is the data-backed pick. For anyone using a laptop with a 930M, the data shows it is competitive with the R7 240 in OpenCL, but its narrower memory bus and lower clocks limit its performance in bandwidth-sensitive tasks.