AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M vs AMD Radeon R7 240

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M is the clear winner in this comparison, outperforming the AMD Radeon R7 240 in the only shared benchmark by 10.7% while also offering substantially higher raw compute, memory bandwidth, and feature support. However, the AMD Radeon R7 240 is a lower-power, desktop-oriented card with a modest footprint and its own niche for basic display tasks. The data shows that the GTX 760M occupies a higher performance tier, sitting at the 31st percentile among all GPUs, while the R7 240 sits just behind at the 30th percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M scores 5,236 on average, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5,063. That is a 3.4% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: How does the GTX 760M compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GTX 760M is essentially neck-and-neck with the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M, trailing it by only 0.5%, and is 0.9% behind the GeForce 940M. It also sits 1.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X.

Q: What is the R7 240's position among its nearest competitors?

A: The R7 240 is exactly tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at 5,063, sits 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4170M, and is 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M430.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 760M delivers 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth with GDDR5 memory, while the R7 240 offers only 28.80 GB/s using DDR3. The NVIDIA part has more than double the bandwidth.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The GTX 760M has a TDP of 55 W, whereas the R7 240 is rated at 30 W. The AMD card consumes 25 W less, making it the more power-efficient option.

Q: Do both cards support modern APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 760M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the R7 240 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 — essentially identical API levels.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is significant. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK106S chip, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Oland chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The GTX 760M packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The R7 240, by contrast, has only 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a slightly higher transistor density of 12.3M per mm². This means the NVIDIA chip is roughly 2.7 times larger in terms of transistor count and nearly three times the die area.

The shading resources are heavily skewed toward the NVIDIA part. The GTX 760M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The R7 240 has just 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is 2.4 times more shading units and 3.2 times more TMUs on the NVIDIA side. Neither GPU features ray tracing or tensor cores.

The memory subsystems differ as well. Both cards have 2 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, but the GTX 760M uses GDDR5 at 1,002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the R7 240 uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective). This results in the GTX 760M having 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s on the R7 240 — a 122.7% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The R7 240 has a base clock of 730 MHz and a boost clock of 780 MHz, while the GTX 760M runs at 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost. The AMD card has higher raw clocks, but the massive difference in core count and memory bandwidth makes that irrelevant in practice.

The physical form factors are also distinct. The GTX 760M is an MXM module, designed for laptops and portable devices, with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card measuring 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA outputs. The NVIDIA card requires no power connectors, and neither does the AMD card, though the R7 240 does list a suggested PSU of 200 W.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M is the superior GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 10.7%, scoring 5,604 against the R7 240's 5,063. Its average benchmark score of 5,236 also beats the R7 240's 5,063 by 3.4%. In terms of raw specifications, the GTX 760M offers more than double the shading units, triple the texture rate, and more than double the memory bandwidth.

However, the choice depends heavily on the use case. The GTX 760M is a mobile GPU in an MXM form factor, intended for laptops and portable devices. The R7 240 is a low-profile desktop card for basic systems. If you are building a desktop PC with a low power budget, the R7 240's 30 W TDP and single-slot design are substantial advantages. It requires no power connector and only a 200 W PSU suggestion, making it trivial to integrate into almost any system.

For performance-oriented tasks like gaming, GPU-accelerated compute, or anything that stresses memory bandwidth, the GTX 760M is the clear pick. The 10.7% head-to-head win in OpenCL demonstrates that even in a compute-heavy workload, the NVIDIA card dominates. The GTX 760M's 64.13 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth is a massive advantage over the R7 240's 28.80 GB/s of DDR3, which will translate into better texture streaming and higher frame rates in graphics workloads.

The GTX 760M also has a higher percentile ranking at 31 versus 30 for the R7 240, and its average score of 5,236 places it in the same tier as the GeForce 940M (5,284) and Quadro 4000M (5,211). The R7 240's 5,063 average score places it alongside the R7 M340 (5,063) and FirePro W4170M (5,034).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification except memory size, bus width, and process node. Both have 2 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, and both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M | AMD Radeon R7 240 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GK106S | Oland |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 628 MHz | 730 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 719 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Speed | 1,002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.13 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 320 |

| TMUs | 64 | 20 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.50 GPixel/s | 6.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.02 GTexel/s | 15.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,104.4 GFLOPS | 499.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

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

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

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | May 29, 2013 | October 7, 2013 |

The GTX 760M has more than double the transistor count, 2.4 times the shading units, 3.2 times the TMUs, and 2.2 times the FP32 throughput (1,104.4 GFLOPS vs 499.2 GFLOPS). The R7 240 does have a higher base and boost clock, but that is insufficient to compensate for the massive resource deficit.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one benchmark directly compares these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M scores 5,604 while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5,063. The NVIDIA card wins by 10.7%, which is a decisive margin in computational workloads.

This result aligns with the specification differences. The GTX 760M has 1,104.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 2.2 times the R7 240's 499.2 GFLOPS. Yet the OpenCL score difference is only 10.7%, not 120%. This suggests that the OpenCL benchmark is not purely compute-bound, or that the R7 240's higher clock speed (730 MHz base vs 628 MHz) helps close the gap in certain workloads. Still, the NVIDIA card wins decisively.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the GTX 760M's 5,236 average is 3.4% higher than the R7 240's 5,063. The GTX 760M also has a second benchmark result — a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4,868 — while the R7 240 has no Vulkan result in the data. This indicates that the NVIDIA card has been tested across a wider range of workloads.

The nearest rival data further contextualizes these scores. The GTX 760M's 5,236 average puts it within 0.5% of the Quadro 4000M (5,211) and 0.9% below the GeForce 940M (5,284). The R7 240's 5,063 average is exactly tied with the R7 M340 (5,063) and 0.6% ahead of the FirePro W4170M (5,034). Both cards are in the same general performance neighborhood, but the GTX 760M sits at the upper edge of that tier.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M wins in every performance metric from the data. It wins the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark by 10.7%, has a higher average benchmark score by 3.4%, and offers 122.7% more memory bandwidth. Its pixel rate of 11.50 GPixel/s is 84.3% higher than the R7 240's 6.240 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 46.02 GTexel/s is 195% higher than the R7 240's 15.60 GTexel/s. For any workload that depends on fill rate, shading, or memory throughput, the GTX 760M is the superior choice.

The AMD Radeon R7 240 wins on power efficiency and physical design. Its 30 W TDP is 45.5% lower than the GTX 760M's 55 W, making it a better fit for low-power builds or systems with weak power supplies. It is also a single-slot desktop card with a compact 168 mm (6.6 inches) length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) height, while the GTX 760M is an MXM module that requires a compatible laptop or portable device. The R7 240 also has dedicated display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA) whereas the GTX 760M's outputs are dependent on the host device.

The R7 240 also has a higher base clock (730 MHz vs 628 MHz) and boost clock (780 MHz vs 719 MHz), but this is a minor consolation given the substantial deficit in core resources. The R7 240's PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is also narrower than the GTX 760M's PCIe 3.0 x16, though this is unlikely to matter for a card of this performance tier.

In summary, the GTX 760M is the pick for anyone prioritizing performance in a mobile or MXM-compatible system. The R7 240 is the pick for a low-power desktop build where the 30 W TDP, single-slot footprint, and included display outputs are the primary considerations.