AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one directly comparable benchmark between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX and the AMD Radeon R7 240: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the GTX 670MX scores 6125, while the R7 240 scores 5063. This gives the NVIDIA part a 21% advantage. That is a substantial lead, and it reflects the fundamental performance gap between the two products.

Looking at the broader context, the GTX 670MX's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 5721. The R7 240's average is 5063. The NVIDIA part sits at the 33rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the AMD part sits at the 30th percentile. Neither card is a high-flyer by modern standards, but the GTX 670MX is clearly the stronger of the two.

The GTX 670MX's nearest rivals in the database are instructive. It sits 0.2% above the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 (5712), 0.2% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti (5731), 0.5% above the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691), and 2.1% above the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604). These are all close calls, meaning the GTX 670MX is essentially trading blows with a set of mid-range parts from its era.

The R7 240's nearest rivals show a different picture. It is exactly level with the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063), 0.6% above the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034), 0.9% above the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018), and 1.3% above the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998). The R7 240 is at the top of its immediate peer group, but that peer group is a tier below the GTX 670MX's competitors.

In the single head-to-head test, the GTX 670MX wins outright. The delta of 21% is not a marginal edge; it is a decisive margin that will be visible in real workloads. The OpenCL test measures general-purpose compute throughput, and the NVIDIA card's higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth drive that result.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX scores 6125 versus the AMD Radeon R7 240's 5063, a 21% higher result.

Q: How does the GTX 670MX compare to its closest rivals?

A: It is within 0.2% of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti, and it leads the AMD Radeon HD 8790M by 0.5% and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M by 2.1%.

Q: How does the R7 240 stack up against its nearest competitors?

A: It is exactly tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M340, 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4170M, 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M430, and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The GTX 670MX averages 5721 across all recorded tests, while the R7 240 averages 5063.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 670MX is at the 33rd percentile, while the R7 240 is at the 30th percentile.

Q: Does the R7 240 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The only direct comparison, Geekbench OpenCL, is won by the GTX 670MX with a 21% delta.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX outperforms the AMD Radeon R7 240 in the only directly comparable benchmark by 21%. Its average benchmark score is 5721 versus 5063, and it holds a higher percentile rank among all GPUs. Anyone choosing between these two for compute tasks should pick the GTX 670MX without hesitation.

The R7 240 does have one advantage that is not related to raw performance: its power draw. The AMD card is rated at 30 W TDP, whereas the GTX 670MX is rated at 75 W. That matters in systems with strict power budgets, such as small form factor builds or low-wattage power supplies. The R7 240 also has a suggested PSU rating of 200 W, while the GTX 670MX has no suggested PSU listed.

However, for actual workload execution, the GTX 670MX is the superior part. Its higher memory bandwidth (67.20 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s) and greater shading unit count (960 versus 320) give it a clear edge in compute-heavy applications. The GTX 670MX also has a higher pixel rate (12.02 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s) and texture rate (48.08 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s).

The R7 240 is an end-of-life product, and so is the GTX 670MX. Neither is a modern solution. But if you have a workload that can use either card, the NVIDIA part delivers meaningfully more throughput per benchmark point. The 21% delta in OpenCL is not a rounding error; it is a real, measurable difference.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The GTX 670MX uses a 192-bit memory bus with 3 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the R7 240 uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of DDR3 memory. The memory bandwidth difference is stark: 67.20 GB/s for the NVIDIA card versus 28.80 GB/s for the AMD card. This alone explains a large portion of the performance gap.

The GTX 670MX has 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Those are dramatically different resource pools. The NVIDIA card has three times the shading units and four times the TMUs.

Clock speeds also differ. The GTX 670MX runs at a base clock of 601 MHz with a boost clock of 601 MHz, meaning it does not boost above its base. The R7 240 runs at 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. The AMD card has higher clocks, but it cannot overcome its much smaller execution resource pool.

Memory clocks are dissimilar as well. The GTX 670MX's memory runs at 700 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective data rate. The R7 240's memory runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. The NVIDIA card's GDDR5 memory and wider bus give it far more bandwidth despite a lower clock.

The bus interface differs: the GTX 670MX uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R7 240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The R7 240 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA. The GTX 670MX has no listed dimensions or slot width because it is a mobile part with portable device dependent outputs.

Power requirements are also different. The GTX 670MX is rated at 75 W TDP with no power connectors. The R7 240 is rated at 30 W TDP, also with no power connectors, but it lists a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 670MX is built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip. The R7 240 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, built on the Oland chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the chips are vastly different in size and complexity.

The GK104 die is 294 mm² and contains 3,540 million transistors. The Oland die is 77 mm² and contains 950 million transistors. That is a 3.7x difference in transistor count and a 3.8x difference in die area. The transistor density is similar (12.0M per mm² for the NVIDIA chip, 12.3M per mm² for the AMD chip), which shows the process node is identical but the design scope is not.

The GTX 670MX is part of the GeForce 600M generation, with the GeForce 500M as its predecessor and the GeForce 700M as its successor. The R7 240 is part of the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation, with Sea Islands as its predecessor and Pirate Islands as its successor.

Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12, but with different feature levels: the GTX 670MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan versions differ slightly: the GTX 670MX supports Vulkan 1.2.175, and the R7 240 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

The GTX 670MX was released on 2012-09-30, and the R7 240 was released on 2013-10-07. Both are end-of-life. The GTX 670MX's launch MSRP is not recorded, while the R7 240's launch MSRP is 69 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 670MX wins in every performance-oriented category. It has higher pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, memory bandwidth, and shading resources. Its 21% OpenCL lead over the R7 240 is the headline result, and it extends to any workload that stresses memory bandwidth or parallel shader execution.

The R7 240 wins only in power efficiency and physical footprint. Its 30 W TDP is less than half of the GTX 670MX's 75 W TDP. For a system with a very limited power supply, the R7 240 is the safer choice. Its single-slot design and compact dimensions (168 mm length, 69 mm height) make it easier to fit in small cases. The R7 240 also has a lower suggested PSU rating of 200 W.

For compute tasks, the GTX 670MX is the clear pick. The 3 GB GDDR5 memory with 67.20 GB/s bandwidth is far superior to the 2 GB DDR3 with 28.80 GB/s. The 960 shading units versus 320 means the NVIDIA part can process far more parallel work per cycle.

For display output flexibility, the R7 240 has a fixed set of connectors (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA), which is useful for desktop systems. The GTX 670MX's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it is designed for laptops and mobile workstations.

The GTX 670MX also supports a slightly newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 versus 1.2.170) and a higher DirectX feature level is available on the R7 240 (11_1 versus 11_0). This is a minor API advantage for the AMD card, but it does not offset the raw performance deficit.

In summary, the GTX 670MX is the superior GPU for any workload that benefits from compute throughput. The R7 240 is only preferable when power draw is the primary constraint. For most users, the GTX 670MX is the answer. For a low-power HTPC or a basic office machine, the R7 240's 30 W draw makes it a viable option, but it will not deliver the same level of performance.