AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 240 and NVIDIA Quadro P400 are both end-of-life, single-slot, 30 W graphics cards aimed at fundamentally different use cases. The R7 240 is a 2013-era entry-level discrete part from AMD’s Volcanic Islands generation, while the P400 is a 2017-era professional workstation card from NVIDIA’s Quadro Pascal lineup. Benchmark data from Geekbench reveals a narrow but clear performance split, with each card winning in different API tests. This analysis walks through the head-to-head numbers, answers common questions, and breaks down where each card’s architecture and specifications give it an edge.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 points against 4249 points for the NVIDIA Quadro P400. That is a 19.2% advantage for the R7 240, a decisive margin in a compute workload. The R7 240’s score places it at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the P400 sits at the 27th percentile. In relative terms, the R7 240 is also ahead of its nearest rivals: it matches the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at 5063 points (0% delta), and beats the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034 points, 0.6% slower) and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018 points, 0.9% slower). The P400, by contrast, trails its own nearest competitors in OpenCL: the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and AMD Radeon R5 M320 both score 4657 points, which is 0.6% ahead of the P400, while the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX scores 4727 points, putting it 0.9% ahead.

However, the story flips when moving to the Vulkan API. The Quadro P400 records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5119 points, which is not just higher than its own OpenCL result but also higher than the R7 240’s OpenCL score of 5063 points. The R7 240 has no Vulkan benchmark entry in the data, so no direct comparison is possible for that API. This asymmetry is important: the R7 240 wins the only shared test, but the P400 demonstrates a separate capability in Vulkan that the R7 240 cannot match in the available dataset. The P400’s average benchmark score across its two tests is 4684 points, which is lower than the R7 240’s single-score average of 5063 points, but that average is dragged down by its weaker OpenCL performance.

In terms of raw compute throughput, the specifications support the benchmark results. The R7 240 delivers 499.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the P400 delivers 641.0 GFLOPS — a 28.4% higher theoretical peak. Yet the R7 240 still wins the OpenCL benchmark, suggesting that driver optimization, memory subsystem behavior, or the specific workload characteristics favor the older GCN architecture. The P400’s pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s and texture rate of 20.03 GTexel/s are both substantially higher than the R7 240’s 6.240 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s, respectively. These rasterization throughput numbers indicate the P400 should be stronger in geometry-bound tasks, but the compute-focused Geekbench test tells a different story.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 points in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 19.2% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P400’s 4249 points.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro P400 have any benchmark where it outperforms the R7 240?

A: The P400 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5119 points, which is higher than the R7 240’s OpenCL score of 5063 points. However, the R7 240 has no Vulkan benchmark entry, so a direct head-to-head in Vulkan is not available in the data.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 has a memory bandwidth of 32.06 GB/s using a 64-bit bus with GDDR5 memory, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 has 28.80 GB/s using a 128-bit bus with DDR3 memory.

Q: What are the API level differences between the two cards?

A: The R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 has a pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s, which is more than three times the AMD Radeon R7 240’s 6.240 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400’s GP107 chip has a transistor density of 25.0M per mm², while the AMD Radeon R7 240’s Oland chip has a density of 12.3M per mm². The P400 is built on a 14 nm process from Samsung, versus the R7 240’s 28 nm process from TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 240 wins decisively in the OpenCL compute benchmark, posting 5063 points versus the Quadro P400’s 4249 points — a 19.2% advantage. This makes the R7 240 the better choice for workloads that rely on OpenCL acceleration, such as general-purpose GPU computing tasks in older applications or frameworks that default to this API. Its 320 shading units and 20 texture mapping units provide a wider SIMD array compared to the P400’s 256 shading units and 16 TMUs, which likely contributes to its compute lead despite lower clock speeds (730 MHz base / 780 MHz boost versus 1228 MHz base / 1252 MHz boost). The R7 240 also holds a slight edge in its average benchmark score (5063 points) versus the P400’s average of 4684 points, though this is partially a function of the P400 having two benchmark entries.

The NVIDIA Quadro P400 wins in every rasterization throughput metric. Its pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s is over three times the R7 240’s 6.240 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 20.03 GTexel/s is 28.4% higher than the R7 240’s 15.60 GTexel/s. The P400 also has double the ROP count (16 versus 8) and a faster memory type (GDDR5 versus DDR3), which gives it 32.06 GB/s of bandwidth compared to 28.80 GB/s. For tasks that stress pixel processing, such as 2D compositing, video post-processing, or CAD viewport rendering that relies on fragment shaders, the P400’s hardware is better equipped. Additionally, the P400’s Vulkan score of 5119 points suggests it can outperform the R7 240 in Vulkan-based applications, where the R7 240 has no recorded benchmark presence.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is the most fundamental split: the R7 240 uses a 28 nm TSMC process, while the P400 uses a 14 nm Samsung process. This leads to a significant transistor density difference — 12.3M per mm² for the R7 240 versus 25.0M per mm² for the P400 — even though the P400’s die is larger at 132 mm² versus 77 mm². The P400 packs 3,300 million transistors, more than triple the R7 240’s 950 million.

Clock speeds are substantially higher on the P400: base clock of 1228 MHz versus 730 MHz, and boost clock of 1252 MHz versus 780 MHz. Memory configurations diverge as well: both have 2 GB of memory, but the R7 240 uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, while the P400 uses GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. The P400’s effective memory speed is 4 Gbps, compared to 1800 Mbps effective for the R7 240, resulting in 32.06 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth.

The compute unit counts differ: the R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The P400’s peak FP32 performance is 641.0 GFLOPS, higher than the R7 240’s 499.2 GFLOPS. The P400 also lists FP16 performance of 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the R7 240 has no FP16 data. Interface and display outputs also differ: the R7 240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA, while the P400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and offers 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Physical dimensions are close — the R7 240 is 168 mm long versus 150 mm for the P400, both with a height of 69 mm. The launch MSRP for the R7 240 was 69 USD; no launch MSRP is listed for the P400.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational. The AMD Radeon R7 240 is built on GCN 1.0, the first iteration of AMD’s Graphics Core Next architecture, and belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. Its chip is codenamed Oland. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 is built on the Pascal architecture, featuring the GP107 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation. This places the P400 roughly four years newer in design philosophy, with a focus on higher clock efficiency per watt.

The process node difference is stark: 28 nm TSMC for the R7 240 versus 14 nm Samsung for the P400. This allows the P400 to achieve higher clock speeds (1228 MHz base versus 730 MHz) while maintaining the same 30 W TDP. The R7 240 compensates with a wider memory bus (128-bit versus 64-bit) but uses slower DDR3 memory, while the P400 uses faster GDDR5 on a narrower bus. The P400’s transistor count of 3,300 million versus 950 million reflects not just the larger die but also the denser 14 nm process.

API support differs in key ways: the R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The P400’s higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_1) and newer Vulkan version indicate better support for modern graphics features. The P400 also includes FP16 capability at a 1:64 ratio, whereas the R7 240 has no FP16 data listed. The R7 240’s predecessor is Sea Islands and its successor is Pirate Islands, while the P400’s predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear trade-off. For OpenCL compute workloads, the AMD Radeon R7 240 is the stronger performer, with a 19.2% higher score (5063 versus 4249) in the only shared benchmark. Its 320 shading units and wider 128-bit memory bus, despite lower clocks, give it a compute advantage that shows up in real benchmark results. Users running legacy OpenCL applications or generic GPGPU tasks should favor the R7 240.

For rasterization-heavy tasks, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is the better pick. Its pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s is more than triple the R7 240’s 6.240 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 20.03 GTexel/s exceeds the R7 240’s 15.60 GTexel/s. The P400’s 16 ROPs, GDDR5 memory, and higher FP32 peak of 641.0 GFLOPS make it more capable for geometry processing, 2D/3D viewport rendering, and Vulkan-based workloads, as evidenced by its 5119-point Vulkan score. The P400 also offers triple mini-DisplayPort outputs and PCIe 3.0 x16 connectivity, which is more flexible for multi-monitor professional setups.

Ultimately, the choice depends on the API and workload. The R7 240 wins the compute test outright, but the P400 counters with superior rasterization throughput and a modern Pascal architecture that supports newer DirectX and Vulkan standards. The R7 240 carries a launch MSRP of 69 USD, while the P400 has no listed launch MSRP. Both cards are end-of-life, so the decision comes down to specific application needs rather than future-proofing.