AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M Comparison

The comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M and the AMD Radeon R7 240 is a study in contrasting design goals: one is a mobile-focused chip built for maximum throughput within a laptop chassis, while the other is a low-profile desktop card aimed at basic functionality. The data available shows a clear, quantifiable gap in raw compute performance, but the distinct feature sets and physical specifications of each card tell a more nuanced story. This analysis relies solely on the benchmark results, architectural details, and specifications provided, without extrapolation or external data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark result between these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance across the GPU's cores. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M delivers a score of 7176, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063. This translates to a decisive 41.7% advantage for the NVIDIA part. This is not a marginal edge; it is a substantial performance gap that places the GTX 765M in a different performance tier for compute-heavy workloads.

To contextualize this score, the GTX 765M’s average benchmark score across all available tests is 5501, which places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival in terms of average score is the NVIDIA GeForce MX130, which scores 5508, a delta of -0.1%. This indicates that the GTX 765M’s average performance is essentially identical to that of the MX130, and it sits just ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, +0.3%) and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467, +0.6%), while trailing the AMD FirePro M4000 (5537, -0.7%). The OpenCL result of 7176, however, is significantly higher than its own average, suggesting that the GTX 765M is particularly strong in OpenCL compute tasks relative to its overall gaming or general workload performance.

The AMD Radeon R7 240, on the other hand, has an average benchmark score of 5063, which is identical to its sole Geekbench OpenCL result. This puts it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, just two points below the GTX 765M in the overall distribution. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M340, which matches its score exactly (5063, 0% delta). It also edges out the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034, +0.6%), the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018, +0.9%), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998, +1.3%). While the percentiles are close, the 41.7% delta in the head-to-head OpenCL test demonstrates that the GTX 765M is fundamentally more powerful in this specific metric.

It is important to note that the GTX 765M has two other benchmark results in its file: a Geekbench Metal score of 2612 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6714. The R7 240 has no corresponding Metal or Vulkan results. This asymmetry in available data means a full cross-API comparison is impossible, but the single OpenCL result is the most direct apples-to-apples comparison available. The data shows a clear winner in raw compute, but the story does not end there.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is the clear performance victor. Its 41.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is a massive margin that reflects a significantly higher compute capacity. The GTX 765M also has a higher average benchmark score (5501 vs 5063) and a higher percentile ranking (32nd vs 30th). For any user whose primary concern is raw processing power for tasks like OpenCL acceleration, the GTX 765M is the superior choice based strictly on the numbers.

The AMD Radeon R7 240, however, has its own domain of superiority, but it is not in performance. The data shows that the R7 240 is a lower-power, more physically adaptable card. Its TDP of 30 W is less than half of the GTX 765M’s 75 W, and it comes in a single-slot form factor with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, making it a drop-in solution for many desktop systems. The GTX 765M, by contrast, is an MXM Module, which is not a user-friendly desktop upgrade path. Therefore, the data suggests the R7 240 is for a user who needs a low-profile, power-efficient display output solution, while the GTX 765M is for a user who needs performance above all else, even if it means being confined to a specific laptop platform.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from different manufacturers, each with distinct design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is based on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK106 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 11.5M / mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 240 is based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Oland chip, also fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Oland chip is significantly smaller, containing 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a higher transistor density of 12.3M / mm².

These architectural differences lead to vastly different compute resources. The GTX 765M features 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This disparity in core counts directly explains the performance gap in the OpenCL benchmark. Furthermore, the GTX 765M’s clock speeds are higher, with a base of 797 MHz and a boost of 863 MHz, compared to the R7 240’s base of 730 MHz and boost of 780 MHz. The combination of more cores and higher clocks gives the GTX 765M a massive theoretical throughput advantage.

The memory subsystems are also architecturally distinct. The GTX 765M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 64.13 GB/s. The R7 240 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, but its bandwidth is only 28.80 GB/s. This difference in memory technology is critical, as the GDDR5 memory on the NVIDIA card provides more than double the bandwidth of the DDR3 memory on the AMD card, which is a key factor in high-resolution texture streaming and compute workloads. The GTX 765M’s memory runs at an effective speed of 4 Gbps, while the R7 240’s runs at 1800 Mbps effective.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M has a higher average benchmark score of 5501, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 240’s average score of 5063.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M scores 7176 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063, giving the NVIDIA card a 41.7% lead in this test.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller physical footprint?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 is a Single-slot card with a length of 168 mm, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is an MXM Module, which is a different form factor not directly comparable in dimensions.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 240 support the same APIs as the NVIDIA card?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but there are differences in Vulkan support. The NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the AMD card supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX version also differs slightly: the NVIDIA card supports 12 (11_0) and the AMD card supports 12 (11_1).

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 has a TDP of 30 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M has a TDP of 75 W.

Q: How does the GTX 765M's performance compare to the R7 240's nearest rival?

A: The GTX 765M’s average score of 5501 is less than 1% different from its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508). The R7 240’s average score of 5063 is exactly equal to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063).

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M wins decisively in raw compute performance. The 41.7% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL is its most significant victory, and it also holds higher theoretical fill rates, with a pixel rate of 13.81 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 55.23 GTexel/s, compared to the R7 240’s 6.240 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance of 1,325.6 GFLOPS dwarfs the R7 240’s 499.2 GFLOPS. This makes it the clear choice for any application that leverages general-purpose GPU computing.

The AMD Radeon R7 240 wins in power efficiency and physical design. Its 30 W TDP is less than half of the GTX 765M’s 75 W, making it far easier to cool and power. It also comes with a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the GTX 765M has no such suggestion due to its mobile nature. The R7 240’s Single-slot design and PCIe 3.0 x8 interface make it a simple plug-and-play card for desktop systems, whereas the GTX 765M’s MXM-B (3.0) interface restricts it to specific laptops. The R7 240 also offers a specific set of display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA), while the GTX 765M’s outputs are listed as Portable Device Dependent.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The most obvious difference is the form factor: the NVIDIA card is an MXM Module designed for laptops, while the AMD card is a Single-slot desktop card measuring 168 mm in length. The GPU chips themselves are different, with the GTX 765M using the GK106 (Kepler) and the R7 240 using the Oland (GCN 1.0). The manufacturing process is the same (28 nm, TSMC), but the die size and transistor count are vastly different: the GTX 765M has a 221 mm² die with 2,540 million transistors, while the R7 240 has a 77 mm² die with 950 million transistors.

Clock speeds also differ. The GTX 765M runs at a base of 797 MHz and a boost of 863 MHz, while the R7 240 runs at 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. Memory is a major differentiator: the GTX 765M uses GDDR5 with a bandwidth of 64.13 GB/s and an effective speed of 4 Gbps, while the R7 240 uses DDR3 with a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s and an effective speed of 1800 Mbps. The compute units are also different, with the GTX 765M having 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, versus the R7 240’s 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The power draw is significantly different, with the GTX 765M at 75 W and the R7 240 at 30 W. Finally, the bus interface differs (MXM-B (3.0) vs PCIe 3.0 x8), and the display outputs are different, with the R7 240 having a fixed set of ports and the GTX 765M’s being dependent on the host device. The API support also varies slightly, with the GTX 765M supporting Vulkan 1.2.175 and the R7 240 supporting 1.2.170.