AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is a decisively superior mobile GPU to the AMD Radeon R7 240, leading by 370.7% in the sole shared benchmark, a margin that dwarfs the differences seen among their respective nearest rivals. The data confirms that the GTX 980M, with its Maxwell 2.0 architecture and 5,200 million transistors, operates in a performance tier that the R7 240, based on the smaller GCN 1.0 Oland chip, cannot approach. While both are end-of-life products, the GTX 980M represents a high-end mobile solution, whereas the R7 240 is an entry-level desktop part.

FAQ

Q: How large is the performance gap between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M and the AMD Radeon R7 240?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the GTX 980M scored 23,832 points, which is 370.7% higher than the R7 240's score of 5,063 points. This is a massive performance delta, indicating the GTX 980M is in an entirely different performance class.

Q: Based on the benchmark data, how does each card compare to its closest competitors?

A: The GTX 980M's average benchmark score of 5,308 places it in a virtual tie with rivals like the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5,317, -0.2%) and GeForce 940M (5,284, 0.5%). Similarly, the R7 240's average score of 5,063 is matched by the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5,063, 0%) and is only 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics.

Q: What are the key architectural differences that explain the performance gap?

A: The GTX 980M uses the GM204 chip built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, featuring 1,536 shading units and 5,200 million transistors. In contrast, the R7 240 is based on the Oland chip with the older GCN 1.0 architecture, featuring only 320 shading units and 950 million transistors.

Q: Do the two graphics cards support the same modern APIs?

A: While both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, the GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 240 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. This means the GTX 980M has access to a higher level of DirectX 12 features.

Q: What are the physical and power characteristics of each card?

A: The GTX 980M is an MXM Module, while the R7 240 is a Single-slot, 168 mm long card. The R7 240 has a 30 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 200 W, whereas the TDP for the GTX 980M is not listed in the data. Both are end-of-life products.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The GTX 980M comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 240 is equipped with 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a much lower 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The architectural disparity between the GTX 980M and R7 240 is the primary driver of their performance split. The GTX 980M is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the GM204 chip, a design that boasts 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. This is in stark contrast to the R7 240, which utilizes AMD's older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Oland chip. The Oland chip is significantly smaller, containing only 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. This difference in transistor count and die size translates directly to the GTX 980M's massive advantage in processing resources. The GTX 980M is equipped with 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs). The R7 240, by comparison, has just 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, which severely limits its pixel and texture processing rates.

Both chips are fabricated on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, but the transistor density differs slightly, with the GTX 980M at 13.1 million transistors per mm² and the R7 240 at 12.3 million. The memory subsystems also represent a major architectural divergence. The GTX 980M uses a 256-bit interface to connect to 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, achieving a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s. The R7 240, on the other hand, is limited to a 128-bit bus paired with 2 GB of DDR3 memory, resulting in a bandwidth of just 28.80 GB/s. This disparity in memory bandwidth is critical for high-resolution textures and compute workloads. Furthermore, the API support differs; the GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 240 is capped at DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, meaning the newer NVIDIA card can leverage more advanced rendering features.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only benchmark shared between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are unequivocal. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M scores 23,832 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 trails far behind with 5,063 points. This represents a 370.7% advantage for the GTX 980M, a lead that is nearly fourfold. In context, the GTX 980M's score is so high that it sits near the top of its own performance bracket, with its nearest rivals (GeForce 930A, 840M, 940M) all scoring within 1% of its average. The R7 240, conversely, is grouped with lower-tier mobile and integrated graphics solutions. Its average score is exactly matched by the AMD Radeon R7 M340, and it only leads the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics by 1.3%.

This single benchmark result effectively summarizes the entire performance relationship. The compute performance, as measured by OpenCL, is not just better on the GTX 980M; it is categorically superior. The 370.7% delta Pct dwarfs the single-digit percentage differences seen between the cards and their respective nearest rivals. For any application that leverages OpenCL for compute acceleration, the GTX 980M would provide a transformative experience compared to the R7 240. The data shows no benchmark where the R7 240 wins; the GTX 980M holds a 1-0 record in head-to-head tests, reinforcing its position as the clear performance leader.

The Verdict

The data points to an unambiguous verdict: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is the superior graphics processor in every measurable way. Its 370.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is not an incremental gain but a generational leap in capability. The GTX 980M's architecture, with its 4.7x more shading units (1,536 vs 320) and 5.5x more transistors (5,200 million vs 950 million), provides a compute foundation that the R7 240 cannot challenge. For any user requiring heavy graphical or compute performance, the GTX 980M is the only choice between these two.

The R7 240, however, should not be dismissed without consideration of its role. As a 30 W, single-slot card with a 168 mm length, it is designed for low-power and space-constrained systems. Its performance is on par with other entry-level parts like the AMD Radeon R7 M340, with an average benchmark score of 5,063. It is a card for basic display output and light 2D workloads. The GTX 980M, by contrast, is a high-performance mobile module intended for gaming laptops, and its performance percentile of 31 vs the R7 240's 30 shows they are both in the lower half of all GPUs, but the GTX 980M's raw scores are far higher. The verdict is clear: pick the GTX 980M for performance, and pick the R7 240 only when power consumption and physical size are the absolute priorities.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for the two cards reveal a stark contrast in nearly every category. The GTX 980M is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, while the R7 240 uses GCN 1.0 with the Oland chip. The GTX 980M has a base clock of 1038 MHz and a boost clock of 1127 MHz, whereas the R7 240 operates at a lower 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. The transistor counts differ massively, with the GTX 980M featuring 5,200 million transistors compared to the R7 240's 950 million. Similarly, the die size is 398 mm² for the NVIDIA part versus just 77 mm² for the AMD part.

The memory configurations are also entirely different. The GTX 980M is equipped with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The R7 240 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding only 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The compute resources follow the same pattern: the GTX 980M has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The pixel rate for the GTX 980M is 72.13 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 108.2 GTexel/s, compared to 6.240 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s for the R7 240. FP32 performance is 3.462 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card versus 499.2 GFLOPS for the AMD card.

Other notable differences include the R7 240's TDP of 30 W and its suggested PSU of 200 W, while the GTX 980M's TDP is not listed; the GTX 980M is an MXM Module form factor with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0), while the R7 240 is a Single-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The R7 240 has defined dimensions of 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the GTX 980M's dimensions are listed as portable-device dependent. The release dates also differ, with the GTX 980M launching on 2014-10-06 and the R7 240 on 2013-10-07.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M wins decisively in compute performance, as evidenced by its 370.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. This makes it the clear choice for any workload that is heavily parallel, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or GPU-accelerated computation. Its superior memory bandwidth (160.4 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s) and higher pixel and texture rates (72.13 GPixel/s and 108.2 GTexel/s vs 6.240 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s) make it ideal for high-resolution gaming and professional graphics applications. The GTX 980M also wins on feature support, offering a higher DirectX 12 feature level (12_1 vs 11_1) and a newer Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.2.170), which could be relevant for future software titles.

The AMD Radeon R7 240, while losing the performance battle, wins in specific use cases related to its physical and power profile. With a 30 W TDP and no power connectors, it is designed for systems with limited power delivery, unlike the GTX 980M which is an MXM Module. The R7 240's compact single-slot design, measuring 168 mm in length, makes it suitable for small form-factor desktops where space is at a premium. Its display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA provide basic connectivity for office or media center use. For users who need a simple, low-power graphics card for non-intensive tasks like 2D desktop work or video playback, the R7 240's low power draw and small footprint are significant advantages. However, for any task that involves 3D graphics or compute, the GTX 980M is the only viable option.