AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single OpenCL benchmark comparison between these two GPUs, and the result is a clear win for the AMD Radeon R7 240. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R7 240 scores 5063 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M trails at 4241 points. That is a 19.4% advantage for the AMD part, a substantial margin in a compute workload that stresses raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth interaction.

Looking at the rival landscape around each card puts this result in context. The R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 5063. Its nearest rivals are all AMD parts: the Radeon R7 M340 ties it exactly at 5063 (0% delta), the FirePro W4170M comes within 0.6% at 5034, the Radeon R5 M430 is 0.9% behind at 5018, and the Radeon R7 Graphics is 1.3% back at 4998. The R7 240 is essentially at the top of its immediate peer group, edging out several mobile and low-profile desktop parts by small but consistent margins.

The Quadro K3000M, by contrast, sits at the 25th percentile with an average score of 4241. Its nearest rivals show a more mixed picture: the AMD Radeon Vega 3 is 0.6% ahead at 4268, the GeForce GTX 460M is 1% ahead at 4282, the FirePro W2100 is 1.3% ahead at 4295, while the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is 1.2% behind at 4193. The K3000M is therefore not just slower than the R7 240; it is also on the wrong side of most comparisons within its own performance bracket.

The 19.4% gap between the two cards in this test is far larger than the differences seen among their respective nearest rivals, which are all within roughly 1.3% of each other. That makes the head-to-head result a decisive separation, not a marginal one. In pure compute throughput, the R7 240 is the stronger part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 19.4% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M's 4241.

Q: How does the R7 240 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The R7 240 ties the Radeon R7 M340 at 5063, beats the FirePro W4170M by 0.6%, the R5 M430 by 0.9%, and the Radeon R7 Graphics by 1.3%. It leads every listed rival.

Q: What is the K3000M's standing among its nearest competitors?

A: The K3000M trails the Radeon Vega 3 by 0.6%, the GTX 460M by 1%, and the FirePro W2100 by 1.3%. It only beats the GTX 1050 Ti, which is 1.2% behind.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the K3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, and the K3000M has a slightly newer Vulkan version at 1.2.175 versus 1.2.170.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two cards?

A: Both have 2 GB of VRAM, but the R7 240 uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the K3000M uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has the higher transistor count and die size?

A: The K3000M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the R7 240 has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages and are built for different physical environments, though they share the same 28 nm manufacturing process at TSMC. The R7 240 uses the Oland chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Volcanic Islands generation (R7 200 series). The K3000M uses the GK104 chip based on Kepler architecture, part of the Quadro Kepler-M generation (Kx000M).

The transistor budgets diverge sharply. The K3000M packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, while the R7 240 fits 950 million transistors onto a 77 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical: 12.3M per mm² for the R7 240 versus 12.0M per mm² for the K3000M. The K3000M is simply a much larger chip with far more resources, but it runs at lower clocks and still loses the compute benchmark.

Clock behavior differs as well. The R7 240 has a base clock of 730 MHz and a boost clock of 780 MHz, while the K3000M is locked at 654 MHz for both base and boost. Memory clocks also favor the AMD part in frequency terms: the R7 240 runs memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the K3000M runs at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The K3000M's GDDR5 memory and wider bus compensate with much higher bandwidth, but that does not translate into a benchmark win.

The compute resource allocation is telling. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. On paper, the K3000M should dominate raw pixel and texture throughput, and indeed its pixel rate is 7.848 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s for the R7 240, and its texture rate is 31.39 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is also higher on the K3000M at 753.4 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS. Yet the OpenCL result goes the other way, suggesting driver efficiency or benchmark-specific behavior favors the GCN architecture in this workload.

The form factors are completely different. The R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card with a 168 mm length and 69 mm height, while the K3000M is an MXM module designed for laptops and mobile workstations. The R7 240 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the K3000M uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs also differ: the R7 240 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA, while the K3000M's outputs are described as portable device dependent.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon R7 240 as the stronger performer in the recorded OpenCL benchmark, and the margin is significant at 19.4%. The R7 240 also holds the higher percentile rank at 30 versus 25 for the K3000M. For anyone choosing between these two based on compute capability alone, the R7 240 is the clear pick.

The K3000M is not without its own strengths. It has a much larger transistor budget, higher pixel and texture rates, more shading units, and dramatically higher memory bandwidth at 89.60 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. In rasterization-heavy workloads or scenarios that depend on memory throughput, the K3000M's hardware specifications suggest it could perform better than the OpenCL score indicates. But the database's only recorded head-to-head test favors the R7 240, and that is the measurement that stands.

The R7 240 also wins on power efficiency, with a 30 W TDP versus 75 W for the K3000M, and it carries a lower suggested PSU requirement of 200 W. The K3000M has no suggested PSU figure in the database, which is typical for a mobile module. The R7 240 is end-of-life, as is the K3000M, so neither is a current purchase recommendation, but for archival comparison, the AMD part delivers more compute per watt.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: Oland (R7 240) versus GK104 (K3000M)
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 versus Kepler
• Generation: Volcanic Islands (R7 200) versus Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M)
• Transistors: 950 million versus 3,540 million
• Die size: 77 mm² versus 294 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.3M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm²
• Base clock: 730 MHz versus 654 MHz
• Boost clock: 780 MHz versus 654 MHz
• Memory clock: 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective versus 700 MHz, 2.8 Gbps effective
• Memory type: DDR3 versus GDDR5
• Memory bus width: 128 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s
• Shading units: 320 versus 576
• TMUs: 20 versus 48
• ROPs: 8 versus 32
• Pixel rate: 6.240 GPixel/s versus 7.848 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 15.60 GTexel/s versus 31.39 GTexel/s
• FP32: 499.2 GFLOPS versus 753.4 GFLOPS
• TDP: 30 W versus 75 W
• Slot width: Single-slot versus MXM Module
• Suggested PSU: 200 W versus not available
• 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 (11_0)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 versus 1.2.175
• Release date: 2013-10-07 versus 2012-05-31
• Predecessor: Sea Islands versus Quadro Fermi-M
• Successor: Pirate Islands versus Quadro Maxwell-M
• Launch MSRP: 69 USD (R7 240 only)
• Benchmark score: 5063 versus 4241
• Percentile: 30 versus 25

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 240 wins in the only measured benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 19.4% advantage. It also wins on power efficiency, drawing 30 W versus 75 W, and on clock speed, with a 780 MHz boost versus 654 MHz. The R7 240 is the better choice for compute-oriented tasks as measured by the database, and it does so in a compact single-slot desktop form factor with standard display outputs.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins on raw hardware specifications. It has 3,540 million transistors versus 950 million, a 294 mm² die versus 77 mm², 576 shading units versus 320, 48 TMUs versus 20, and 32 ROPs versus 8. Its memory subsystem is far superior on paper: GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivers 89.60 GB/s, more than three times the R7 240's 28.80 GB/s. Pixel rate is 7.848 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s, texture rate is 31.39 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 753.4 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS. For workloads that stress geometry, texture filtering, or memory bandwidth, the K3000M's hardware profile suggests it would pull ahead, even though the OpenCL result does not reflect that.

In practical terms, the R7 240 suits a desktop user who needs a low-power, low-profile card for general compute acceleration and light graphics work. The K3000M suits a mobile workstation environment where MXM modularity and higher memory bandwidth matter, and where the extra TDP can be managed by a laptop cooling solution. The benchmark data favors the R7 240, but the specification sheet favors the K3000M in several key areas, so the right choice depends on whether the workload is compute-bound or bandwidth-bound.