AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

The Verdict

The data makes this decision straightforward. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the overwhelmingly stronger GPU in every measurable way. Its OpenCL score of 16646 crushes the AMD Radeon R7 240's 5063, a 69.6% deficit for the AMD part. If you need compute performance, the Quadro is the only rational choice.

The Radeon R7 240 is an end-of-life desktop entry card from 2013, built for basic display output and light workloads. It sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Quadro M3000M, a mobile workstation part from 2015, also sits low at the 27th percentile, but it delivers over three times the raw OpenCL throughput. Neither card is fast by modern standards, but the Quadro is in a different performance class.

Choose the R7 240 only if you have a legacy desktop system with a PCIe 3.0 x8 slot, need a single-slot passive card with no auxiliary power connector, and require VGA output. It draws 30 W and needs only a 200 W power supply. The Quadro M3000M is an MXM module, so it is not a drop-in desktop card at all; it belongs in a compatible laptop or MXM chassis. If you can mount it, its 4 GB GDDR5 memory, 256-bit bus, and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth make it the pick for any GPU compute task.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families and different market segments. The Radeon R7 240 uses the Oland chip built on GCN 1.0, AMD's Volcanic Islands generation (R7 200 series). The Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 die on Maxwell 2.0, part of NVIDIA's Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation.

Both are fabricated by TSMC on the same 28 nm process, but the similarity ends there. The Oland die packs 950 million transistors into 77 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The GM204 die is far larger: 5,200 million transistors on 398 mm², at 13.1 million per mm². That is roughly 5.5 times the transistor count, which explains the massive performance gap.

The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The Quadro M3000M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is 3.2 times the shaders, 3.2 times the TMUs, and 4 times the ROPs. These are structural advantages, not clock speed tricks.

Clock speeds differ as well. The R7 240 runs at a 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. The Quadro runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. The Quadro is higher clocked and has far more execution resources, so it wins on both fronts.

Memory subsystems are also completely different. The R7 240 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth and 1800 Mbps effective memory speed. The Quadro M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s at 5 Gbps effective. The Quadro has 5.6 times the memory bandwidth, which is critical for compute workloads.

Feature support differs too. The R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

The R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card, 168 mm long and 69 mm tall, with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA outputs. The Quadro is an MXM module with display outputs described as portable device dependent, meaning you rely on the host laptop's ports. The R7 240 has no power connectors and a 30 W TDP; the Quadro also has no power connectors but a 75 W TDP, drawing power through the MXM connector.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 16646 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063. The Quadro leads by 69.6%.

Q: Can the Radeon R7 240 be used in a modern desktop?

A: Yes, it is a PCIe 3.0 x8 single-slot card with DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and VGA outputs. It needs no power connectors and has a 30 W TDP, so it fits in low-power legacy systems, though it is end-of-life.

Q: Is the Quadro M3000M a desktop graphics card?

A: No, it is an MXM module, designed for laptops or systems with MXM slots. Its display outputs are portable device dependent, and it has a 75 W TDP.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M3000M has 160.4 GB/s over a 256-bit interface with GDDR5. The R7 240 has 28.80 GB/s over a 128-bit interface with DDR3. The Quadro has roughly 5.6 times the bandwidth.

Q: What are the transistor counts of these chips?

A: The R7 240's Oland chip has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The Quadro M3000M's GM204 has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: Oland (AMD) vs GM204 (NVIDIA)
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs Maxwell 2.0
• Generation: Volcanic Islands (R7 200) vs Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M)
• Transistors: 950 million vs 5,200 million
• Die size: 77 mm² vs 398 mm²
• Transistor density: 12.3M / mm² vs 13.1M / mm²
• Base clock: 730 MHz vs 823 MHz
• Boost clock: 780 MHz vs 924 MHz
• Memory clock: 1800 Mbps effective vs 5 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 2 GB vs 4 GB
• Memory type: DDR3 vs GDDR5
• Memory bus width: 128 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s vs 160.4 GB/s
• Shading units: 320 vs 1024
• TMUs: 20 vs 64
• ROPs: 8 vs 32
• Pixel rate: 6.240 GPixel/s vs 29.57 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 15.60 GTexel/s vs 59.14 GTexel/s
• FP32: 499.2 GFLOPS vs 1.892 TFLOPS
• TDP: 30 W vs 75 W
• Slot width: Single-slot vs MXM Module
• Suggested PSU: 200 W vs not specified
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA vs portable device dependent
• DirectX: 12 (11_1) vs 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 vs 1.4
• Dimensions: 168 mm x 69 mm vs not specified
• Release date: 2013-10-07 vs 2015-08-17
• Predecessor: Sea Islands vs Quadro Kepler-M
• Successor: Pirate Islands vs Quadro Pascal-M

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro M3000M scores 16646, while the R7 240 scores 5063. The delta is -69.6% for the AMD card, meaning the Quadro is about 3.3 times faster in this workload.

That single result is decisive. The OpenCL test exercises raw compute throughput, and the Quadro's hardware advantages all feed into it. It has 1024 shading units versus 320, a 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit, and GDDR5 versus DDR3. Its FP32 throughput is 1.892 TFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS, a 3.8 times advantage. Its pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s.

The Quadro also has additional benchmark entries that the R7 240 lacks entirely, all from Passmark: DirectX 9 at 98, DirectX 10 at 26, DirectX 11 at 42, DirectX 12 at 23, G2D at 402, G3D at 5543, and GPU compute at 2139. The R7 240 has no recorded scores in any of these tests, so no comparison is possible. The absence of data is itself meaningful: the database only shows the R7 240 competing in OpenCL, where it loses heavily.

The nearest rival data confirms the positioning. The R7 240's closest competitors are all low-end GPUs: the Radeon R7 M340 at 5063 (0% delta), FirePro W4170M at 5034 (0.6% faster), Radeon R5 M430 at 5018 (0.9% faster), and Radeon R7 Graphics at 4998 (1.3% faster). This cluster shows the R7 240 sits at the bottom of the performance pool.

The Quadro M3000M's nearest rivals are a mixed bag: GeForce GTX 970M at 4628 (0.1% faster), Radeon R5 M320 at 4657 (0.8% faster), Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at 4657 (0.8% faster), and Radeon R5 M230 at 4577 (1% slower). The Quadro's average benchmark score is 4621, which is dragged down by the low Passmark DirectX scores. Its OpenCL and Vulkan scores of 16646 and 16668 are far above its average, showing the card is much stronger in compute than in legacy DirectX rasterization.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M3000M wins every category where data exists. In OpenCL compute, it is 69.6% ahead. Its memory bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s makes it the clear choice for any workload that moves large data sets, such as rendering, scientific simulation, or machine learning inference. Its FP32 throughput of 1.892 TFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS gives it a 3.8 times advantage in raw math. Its pixel rate of 29.57 GPixel/s and texture rate of 59.14 GTexel/s are both roughly 4 to 5 times the R7 240's figures.

The R7 240 has no benchmark wins in the database. Its one recorded score is lower than the Quadro's, and it has no entries in the Passmark suite. Its advantages are practical, not performance-based. It is a single-slot desktop card with a 30 W TDP and no power connectors, so it can be installed in almost any desktop with a PCIe 3.0 x8 slot. It offers VGA output, which the Quadro cannot provide directly. It also has a 200 W suggested PSU, meaning it works in prebuilt office desktops with weak power supplies.

For a builder with an older desktop that just needs display output and light compute, the R7 240 is the functional choice. For anyone who needs actual GPU compute performance, the Quadro M3000M is the only serious option, provided the host system has an MXM slot. The Quadro also supports newer APIs: DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, versus DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. That makes it more future-proof for software that leans on modern graphics APIs.

In short, the R7 240 wins on physical integration and power requirements; the Quadro wins on every performance metric recorded. There is no scenario in the data where the R7 240 outperforms the Quadro in a benchmark, so the decision comes down to platform compatibility and workload needs.