AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 240 and NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they represent very different eras and design philosophies. The R7 240 is a newer, low-power 28 nm part from AMD’s Volcanic Islands generation, while the GTS 450 is an older, power-hungry 40 nm Fermi card from NVIDIA’s GeForce 400 series. In the single available benchmark, a Geekbench OpenCL test, the R7 240 scores 5063 against the GTS 450’s 4893, giving AMD a 3.5% lead. This slim margin, however, masks significant architectural and practical differences that matter more than the raw score suggests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark result available is the Geekbench OpenCL score, and it shows a narrow victory for the AMD Radeon R7 240. It scores 5063, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893, resulting in a 3.5% delta in favor of AMD. This is a single test, so the data should be interpreted as a snapshot rather than a comprehensive comparison, but it does establish a baseline: in this compute workload, the newer AMD card edges out the older NVIDIA card.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTS 450 sits at the 28th. The difference is small, and both cards are firmly in the low-end tier of performance. The R7 240’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M340, which matches its score exactly at 5063 with a 0% delta, and the AMD FirePro W4170M, which scores 5034, a 0.6% deficit. The GTS 450, on the other hand, is flanked by surprising company: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB scores 4901, a -0.2% delta, and the AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904, also a -0.2% delta. This clustering suggests that the GTS 450’s OpenCL score is not far off from some much newer cards, though the RTX 5060 Ti comparison is likely an anomaly in this specific compute test.

The R7 240’s advantage in the benchmark can be attributed to its architecture. GCN 1.0 is a compute-focused design, and the card’s 320 shading units, despite a low 499.2 GFLOPS FP32 throughput, seem to handle the OpenCL workload efficiently. The GTS 450, with 192 shading units, has a higher theoretical FP32 of 601.3 GFLOPS, yet it still loses to the R7 240. This implies that the R7 240’s driver overhead or compute scheduling is better suited to this task. The GTS 450 does win in other raw specs, like texture rate (25.06 GTexel/s vs 15.60 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (6.264 GPixel/s vs 6.240 GPixel/s), but those advantages do not translate to a win in the OpenCL test.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 3.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450’s score of 4893.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ, and does it matter?

A: The R7 240 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The GTS 450 uses 1 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but delivers 57.73 GB/s, which is double the bandwidth. Despite this, the GTS 450 loses the OpenCL test, suggesting that memory bandwidth is not the limiting factor here.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The R7 240 has a 30 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The GTS 450 has a 106 W TDP, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Do both cards support modern APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12, but the R7 240 supports version 11_1 while the GTS 450 supports 11_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The R7 240 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTS 450 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The R7 240 is 168 mm long and 69 mm high, fitting a single-slot bracket. The GTS 450 is 210 mm long and 111 mm high, requiring a dual-slot bracket.

Q: Which card has a higher launch MSRP?

A: The GTS 450 launched at an MSRP of 129 USD, while the R7 240 launched at 69 USD.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The AMD Radeon R7 240 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process from TSMC, with a die size of 77 mm² and 950 million transistors. This makes for a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm², a much denser and more modern design. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450, in contrast, uses the Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process from TSMC, with a much larger 238 mm² die and 1,170 million transistors, but a lower density of 4.9 million per mm².

The core configurations differ significantly. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The GTS 450 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the GTS 450 has more texture and pixel processing capacity, but fewer shader cores. The memory subsystem also diverges: the R7 240 uses 2 GB of DDR3 with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTS 450 uses 1 GB of GDDR5 with 57.73 GB/s bandwidth. The GDDR5 memory on the GTS 450 is clocked at 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), while the R7 240’s DDR3 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Feature support also differs. The R7 240 has a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the GTS 450 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. In terms of display outputs, the R7 240 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA, while the GTS 450 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. The R7 240 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, but the GTS 450 has no Vulkan support. Both support DirectX 12, but the R7 240’s version is 11_1 versus 11_0 for the GTS 450. The GTS 450 is a dual-slot card with a 6-pin power connector, while the R7 240 is a single-slot card with no power connector.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon R7 240 is the better performer, winning the only head-to-head test with a 3.5% margin. It also offers a lower launch MSRP of 69 USD versus 129 USD for the GTS 450, though price is not a factor in performance. The R7 240 is also far more efficient, with a 30 W TDP versus 106 W, and it requires no external power connector, making it a drop-in upgrade for older systems with minimal PSU headroom.

However, the GTS 450 has its own strengths in raw specifications. It has double the memory bandwidth (57.73 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s), more TMUs (32 vs 20), more ROPs (16 vs 8), and a higher pixel rate and texture rate. It also has a higher FP32 throughput (601.3 GFLOPS vs 499.2 GFLOPS). For workloads that are sensitive to memory bandwidth or texture fill, the GTS 450 could outperform the R7 240, but that is not reflected in the available OpenCL score.

The R7 240 is the card to choose if you want lower power consumption, modern API support including Vulkan, a smaller physical footprint, and a slightly higher compute score. The GTS 450 is the card to choose if you have specific needs for higher memory bandwidth or texture throughput, and you are willing to accommodate its higher power draw and larger size. In a general-purpose sense, the data points to the R7 240 as the more balanced and practical option.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 240 | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 57.73 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 192 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.240 GPixel/s | 6.264 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 15.60 GTexel/s | 25.06 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 499.2 GFLOPS | 601.3 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | 106 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | None |

| Length | 168 mm (6.6 in) | 210 mm (8.3 in) |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 in) | 111 mm (4.4 in) |

| Launch MSRP | 69 USD | 129 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 240 wins in the compute benchmark, achieving a 3.5% higher OpenCL score. It also wins on efficiency, power consumption, and physical size. It is the better choice for a home theater PC, a low-power office build, or any system where space and heat are concerns. Its lack of a power connector means it can run in almost any motherboard with a PCIe slot, and its support for Vulkan gives it an edge in modern API-based workloads, assuming the card has enough raw power to be usable.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 wins in raw memory bandwidth, texture fill rate, and pixel throughput. Its 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth is more than double the R7 240’s, and its 32 TMUs give it a 25.06 GTexel/s texture rate versus the R7 240’s 15.60 GTexel/s. These specifications suggest it would be better suited to games or applications that rely heavily on textures and high-resolution framebuffers, though its older Fermi architecture and lack of Vulkan support limit its modern relevance. Its dual-slot design and 106 W TDP mean it needs a more robust power supply and chassis.

In summary, the R7 240 is the winner in the benchmark and in operational characteristics, while the GTS 450 retains theoretical advantages in specific rendering tasks. For a practical, low-impact upgrade, the R7 240 is the data-backed choice. For workloads that crave bandwidth and fill rate above all else, the GTS 450 has the specifications to deliver, but it will cost you in power and space.