AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents an unusual pairing: the AMD Radeon R7 240 is a low-power desktop card from late 2013, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is a high-end mobile GPU from a year later. The single shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, shows a decisive NVIDIA victory: the GTX 970M scores 18,946 versus 5,063 for the R7 240, a delta of -73.3% from the AMD card's perspective. That means the GTX 970M delivers roughly 3.7 times the OpenCL compute performance. For anyone needing raw GPU compute in a portable form factor, the GTX 970M is the only rational choice. The R7 240, with its 30 W TDP and no power connectors, suits a different purpose: basic display output and light acceleration in an ultra-compact desktop build. The benchmark data heavily favors NVIDIA, but the AMD card's niche is not about performance, it is about minimum footprint and power draw.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design philosophies. The R7 240 uses the Oland chip, built on GCN 1.0 architecture from the Volcanic Islands generation (R7 200 series). The GTX 970M uses the GM204 chip, based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture from the GeForce 900M generation. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the silicon scales differ enormously. The R7 240 packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The GTX 970M contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, with a density of 13.1M per mm². The NVIDIA chip is 5.5 times larger in die area and holds over 5 times more transistors.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The R7 240 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 970M uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, achieving 120.3 GB/s, over 4 times the bandwidth. Clock behavior differs too: the R7 240 runs at 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost, while the GTX 970M runs at 924 MHz base and 1038 MHz boost. The memory clock on the AMD card is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the NVIDIA card runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Compute resources are in another league. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The GTX 970M has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. That is 4 times the shaders, 4 times the TMUs, and 6 times the ROPs. Pixel rate on the NVIDIA card is 49.82 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s on AMD. Texture rate is 83.04 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.657 TFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS, a 5.3 times advantage.

API support shows a subtle difference: the R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The NVIDIA card has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 18,946 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5,063. The GTX 970M leads by 73.3% of the AMD card's score, meaning it is roughly 3.7 times faster in this test.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The GTX 970M has 120.3 GB/s of bandwidth from 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus. The R7 240 has 28.80 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA card provides over 4 times the bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The GTX 970M's GM204 chip contains 5,200 million transistors, while the R7 240's Oland chip contains 950 million. This is a 5.5 times transistor count advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both are listed as end-of-life. The R7 240 was released on October 7, 2013, and the GTX 970M on October 6, 2014.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The R7 240 has a TDP of 30 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The GTX 970M has no TDP listed in the database, and no suggested PSU is provided.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 970M has 1,280 shading units, while the R7 240 has 320. This is a 4 times difference in shader count.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. Starting with the chip: AMD uses Oland (GCN 1.0), NVIDIA uses GM204 (Maxwell 2.0). Transistors: 950 million versus 5,200 million. Die size: 77 mm² versus 398 mm². Transistor density: 12.3M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm². Base clock: 730 MHz versus 924 MHz. Boost clock: 780 MHz versus 1038 MHz. Memory clock: 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Memory size: 2 GB versus 6 GB. Memory type: DDR3 versus GDDR5. Bus width: 128 bit versus 192 bit. Bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s versus 120.3 GB/s. Shading units: 320 versus 1,280. TMUs: 20 versus 80. ROPs: 8 versus 48. Pixel rate: 6.240 GPixel/s versus 49.82 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 15.60 GTexel/s versus 83.04 GTexel/s. FP32: 499.2 GFLOPS versus 2.657 TFLOPS. TDP: 30 W versus no listed TDP. Slot width: single-slot versus MXM Module. Power connectors: none for both. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA versus portable device dependent. DirectX: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (12_1). Vulkan: 1.2.170 versus 1.4. The R7 240 has dimensions of 168 mm length and 69 mm height; the GTX 970M has no dimensions listed. The R7 240 has a launch MSRP of 69 USD; the GTX 970M has no launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5,063 points. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 18,946 points. The delta is -73.3% from the AMD side, meaning the NVIDIA card outperforms the AMD card by a factor of 3.74. This is a massive compute gap, consistent with the 4 times shading unit advantage and the 5.3 times FP32 throughput advantage. The GTX 970M wins the only recorded benchmark, giving it 1 win and the R7 240 zero wins in this comparison.

The percentile data places both cards near the bottom of the database, but with a twist. The R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 970M sits at the 27th percentile. This seems counterintuitive given the large performance gap, but it reflects the fact that the database contains many modern, high-end GPUs that dwarf both cards. The R7 240's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M340 with an identical average score of 5,063 (0% delta), the AMD FirePro W4170M at 5,034 (0.6% behind), and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 at 5,018 (0.9% behind). The GTX 970M's average benchmark score across all its tests is 4,628, which is actually lower than its Geekbench OpenCL result because it also includes several low-scoring DirectX and compute tests. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4,621 (0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon R5 M320 at 4,657 (0.6% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at 4,657 (0.6% ahead).

The GTX 970M's full benchmark suite shows a mixed profile. In PassMark tests, it scores 99 in DirectX 9, 42 in DirectX 11, 28 in DirectX 10, and 24 in DirectX 12. It scores 381 in G2D, 5,704 in G3D, and 2,289 in GPU compute. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 472. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 18,292. The R7 240 has no other benchmark entries besides the Geekbench OpenCL result, so no further comparison is possible.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970M wins every measurable aspect of this comparison. In the only head-to-head benchmark, it dominates OpenCL compute by 73.3%. Its memory bandwidth is 4.2 times higher, its pixel rate is 8 times higher, its texture rate is 5.3 times higher, and its FP32 throughput is 5.3 times higher. The NVIDIA card has 4 times the shading units, 4 times the TMUs, and 6 times the ROPs. It also has 3 times the memory capacity and a wider memory bus. For any workload that stresses the GPU, the GTX 970M is the clear winner.

The R7 240's wins are not in performance but in physical and electrical characteristics. It has a TDP of 30 W, which is remarkably low, and it requires no power connectors. The GTX 970M has no TDP listed, but as an MXM module, it is designed for laptops where power delivery is handled by the motherboard. The R7 240 is a single-slot card with a compact 168 mm length and 69 mm height, making it suitable for small form factor desktops. It also has explicit display outputs (DVI, HDMI 1.4a, VGA), while the GTX 970M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning they vary by laptop implementation. The R7 240 has a launch MSRP of 69 USD, while the GTX 970M has no listed price.

For use cases: the GTX 970M is for anyone needing compute acceleration or gaming in a laptop, given its high shader count and 6 GB of GDDR5. The R7 240 is for basic desktop tasks, legacy display connectivity, and low-power builds where the 30 W TDP is a feature, not a limitation. The benchmark data cannot support any claim that the R7 240 is competitive in performance; it wins only on power efficiency and physical footprint. The GTX 970M is the only choice for performance-oriented workloads, while the R7 240 remains a minimal-viability option for simple display output.