AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX Comparison

AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX: the data shows a narrow overall victory for the AMD part, but the comparison is defined by a single benchmark and a stark difference in architectural approach. The R7 240 takes the head-to-head win in Geekbench OpenCL, yet the 940MX counters with superior raw compute specifications and a more modern feature set.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a close contest. The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5,063 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX trails with 4,939 points. That gives AMD a 2.5% lead, a margin that is statistically narrow but still a clear winner in the head-to-head table. The R7 240’s advantage here is modest, not a generational gap, but it does place the AMD card ahead in the only side-by-side test recorded.

When placed against their respective peer groups, both cards sit at the bottom of the performance stack. The R7 240 holds a 30th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the 940MX sits just below at the 28th percentile. The AMD card’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M340, which matches its 5,063 average score exactly with a 0% delta. The NVIDIA part’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M, which scores 4,855 and is 0.2% slower. Notably, the 940MX’s rival list includes the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4,791, which is 1.1% behind—a reminder that these benchmark scores do not always align with generation or tier expectations.

The 940MX does have one additional data point: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4,749. This is not directly comparable to the R7 240, which has no Vulkan result, but it shows the NVIDIA card can handle modern low-level APIs. The R7 240’s average benchmark score is 5,063, while the 940MX averages 4,844 across its two tests, reflecting that its OpenCL result is its stronger showing.

Where Each One Wins

The R7 240 wins in the OpenCL compute test, which is the primary indicator of general-purpose GPU performance. This suggests it holds an edge in workloads that leverage OpenCL acceleration, such as certain productivity tasks or compute-heavy filters. Its 2.5% lead in that specific test is the only head-to-head victory recorded, and it aligns with the card’s higher average benchmark score of 5,063 versus the 940MX’s 4,844.

The 940MX, despite losing the OpenCL comparison, wins on architectural capability and API support. It offers a Vulkan 1.4 API version, while the R7 240 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. For modern games or applications that rely on Vulkan, the NVIDIA card has a clear software advantage. Additionally, the 940MX’s higher shading unit count and texture rate suggest it would be stronger in raw fill-rate-bound scenarios, even if the benchmark data does not capture that directly. The 940MX also has a lower TDP of 23 W versus the R7 240’s 30 W, making it the more efficient choice for thermally constrained mobile environments.

The R7 240, conversely, has a wider memory bus at 128-bit versus the 940MX’s 64-bit, which contributes to its higher pixel rate relative to its texture rate. However, the 940MX’s GDDR5 memory delivers 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth, substantially more than the R7 240’s 28.80 GB/s from DDR3. This means the NVIDIA card is likely better suited for memory-intensive tasks, even if the raw compute test favors AMD.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from opposite architectural camps. The AMD Radeon R7 240 uses the Oland chip based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Volcanic Islands generation (R7 200 series). The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX uses the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture, from the GeForce 900M generation. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the die sizes and transistor counts diverge sharply.

The R7 240 packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The 940MX nearly doubles the transistor count to 1,870 million on a 148 mm² die, with a similar density of 12.6M per mm². This larger, more complex chip gives NVIDIA room for more execution resources: the 940MX has 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units, against the R7 240’s 320 shading units and 20 TMUs. Both cards have 8 ROPs, so pixel output is similar—the R7 240 manages 6.240 GPixel/s while the 940MX reaches 6.888 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The R7 240 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, while the 940MX uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. The GDDR5’s higher clock speed (5 Gbps effective versus 1,800 Mbps effective) allows the 940MX to nearly double the bandwidth, hitting 40.10 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. The R7 240’s wider bus does not compensate for the slower memory type, which is a critical distinction for texture-heavy workloads.

API support tells a mixed story. The R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the 940MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD card has a slight edge in DirectX feature level, but the NVIDIA card’s Vulkan 1.4 support is far more recent than the R7 240’s 1.2.170. This makes the 940MX better positioned for future-proofing in Vulkan-based titles.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several decisive differences beyond the architecture. Clock speeds favor NVIDIA: the 940MX runs at a base of 795 MHz and boosts to 861 MHz, while the R7 240 is slower at 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. This higher clock, combined with more shading units, yields a substantial FP32 compute advantage for the 940MX at 881.7 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS.

Memory bandwidth is a major differentiator. The 940MX’s GDDR5 memory at 40.10 GB/s is 39% higher than the R7 240’s 28.80 GB/s. Texture rate also favors NVIDIA significantly: 27.55 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is closer, with the 940MX at 6.888 GPixel/s and the R7 240 at 6.240 GPixel/s.

Power and physical dimensions vary considerably. The R7 240 has a 30 W TDP and is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. It outputs via 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA. The 940MX is a lower-power MXM module at 23 W TDP, with no length or height dimensions listed, and its display outputs are described as “Portable Device Dependent,” reflecting its laptop-oriented design. Both cards use PCIe 3.0 x8 and have no power connectors.

Release dates are far apart: the R7 240 launched in October 2013, while the 940MX arrived in June 2016. Both are now end-of-life products. The R7 240 had a launch MSRP of 69 USD, while the 940MX has no listed MSRP. The R7 240’s predecessor is Sea Islands and its successor is Pirate Islands, while the 940MX succeeds GeForce 800M and is followed by GeForce 10 Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 wins, scoring 5,063 against the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX’s 4,939, a 2.5% lead.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX have a higher memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, the 940MX has 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth from GDDR5 memory, while the R7 240 has 28.80 GB/s from DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two cards?

A: The R7 240 has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the 940MX has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

Q: Which card offers better Vulkan API support?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the AMD Radeon R7 240 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The 940MX has 512 shading units, while the R7 240 has 320 shading units, giving NVIDIA a 60% higher count.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The R7 240 has a 30 W TDP, while the 940MX is lower at 23 W, making the NVIDIA part more power-efficient.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon R7 240 is the better choice for pure OpenCL compute performance, as it wins the only direct benchmark with a 2.5% margin and posts a higher average score of 5,063 versus 4,844. It also has a wider 128-bit memory bus and a higher pixel rate relative to its texture rate, which could benefit certain low-resolution rendering tasks. For users running OpenCL-based workloads or legacy DirectX 12 (11_1) applications, the R7 240’s benchmark win is the deciding factor.

The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, however, is the better all-around mobile GPU based on specifications. It offers nearly double the FP32 compute (881.7 GFLOPS vs 499.2 GFLOPS), 39% more memory bandwidth, a 76% higher texture rate, and more shading units. Its newer Vulkan 1.4 support and lower 23 W TDP make it more suitable for modern games and thermally constrained laptops. Despite losing the OpenCL test, the 940MX’s superior architecture and feature set suggest it will handle a broader range of tasks more effectively.

The choice depends on the use case. If the priority is a specific OpenCL benchmark score, the R7 240 wins. If the priority is compute headroom, bandwidth, and API currency, the 940MX is the stronger pick. The 30th versus 28th percentile rankings show both are entry-level parts, but the 940MX’s specification sheet points to a more capable overall solution for general graphics and compute work, even if the one recorded benchmark favors AMD.