AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data paints a picture of two GPUs that exist at opposite ends of the performance spectrum, and their respective benchmark results reflect that gulf. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server is a compute-focused accelerator with a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5996, placing it in the 34th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The AMD Radeon R7 240, a low-power desktop card from a much earlier era, has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5063 and sits in the 30th percentile. While both percentile positions are close, the actual workloads they are designed for could not be more different.

The RTX PRO 6000 wins decisively in any scenario that demands raw rendering power, massive memory capacity, and modern feature support. Its 126.0 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 96 GB of GDDR7 memory, and 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth are figures that belong to a class of hardware meant for professional visualization, AI inference, and large-scale data processing. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, which stresses modern graphics features and high-resolution rendering, is exactly the kind of workload this card is built for. In contrast, the R7 240's 499.2 GFLOPS of FP32 and 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth are entry-level numbers from 2013, when the card targeted basic desktop acceleration, legacy display output, and light multimedia use.

The R7 240 wins in efficiency and physical footprint, at least relative to its power draw. Its 30 W TDP and single-slot design, with no power connectors required, make it a drop-in solution for older systems or low-profile builds. The RTX PRO 6000, by contrast, demands a 600 W TDP, a dual-slot cooler, a 1x 16-pin power connector, and a 1000 W suggested PSU. For a system builder prioritizing low power consumption and minimal chassis requirements, the R7 240 is the clear choice. For anyone needing serious compute throughput, the RTX PRO 6000 is the only option that makes sense based on the data.

The use-case split is stark: the RTX PRO 6000 is a server-grade accelerator for workloads that need massive memory, high bandwidth, and modern API support, while the R7 240 is an end-of-life, low-power card for basic display output and legacy applications. Neither card is a substitute for the other, and the benchmark results reinforce that they serve entirely different markets.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is a generation-spanning chasm. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server is built on the GB202 chip using the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 92,200 million transistors onto a 750 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 122.9 million per mm². The AMD Radeon R7 240 uses the Oland chip with the GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains just 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per mm². The difference in transistor count alone is nearly two orders of magnitude, and the density advantage of the newer process is clear.

The RTX PRO 6000 features 24,064 shading units, 752 TMUs, 192 ROPs, 188 RT cores, and 752 tensor cores. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with no RT cores or tensor cores at all. Its API support is DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The presence of RT and tensor cores on the NVIDIA card is a fundamental feature difference: hardware ray tracing and AI acceleration are simply absent from the AMD part.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The RTX PRO 6000 uses 96 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus, with memory clocks at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s. The R7 240 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocks at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) and bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The bus width difference (512-bit vs 128-bit) and memory type difference (GDDR7 vs DDR3) explain the massive bandwidth gap.

Process node, transistor count, die size, memory configuration, compute resources, and API feature set all differ. The NVIDIA card is a modern, feature-rich accelerator; the AMD card is a legacy, stripped-down part from the Volcanic Islands generation. There is no architectural overlap in their capabilities.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server delivers 126.0 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 delivers 499.2 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA card is roughly 252 times faster in this metric, a reflection of its server-grade positioning.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 240 support hardware ray tracing?

A: No. The R7 240 has no RT cores and no tensor cores. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 includes 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 has 96 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, while the R7 240 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus. The bandwidth difference is substantial: 1.79 TB/s versus 28.80 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a lower power requirement?

A: The R7 240 has a 30 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The RTX PRO 6000 has a 600 W TDP, requires a 1x 16-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 1000 W.

Q: How do their benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 scores 5996 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, and the R7 240 scores 5063 in Geekbench OpenCL. These are different tests, but the percentile positions are close: 34th for NVIDIA and 30th for AMD.

Q: What are the production statuses of these cards?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 is listed as Active, released on 2025-03-17. The R7 240 is End-of-life, released on 2013-10-07.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field in the database.

• Chip and architecture: GB202 with Blackwell 2.0 versus Oland with GCN 1.0.
• Process node: 5 nm versus 28 nm, both from TSMC.
• Transistors: 92,200 million versus 950 million.
• Die size: 750 mm² versus 77 mm².
• Transistor density: 122.9M / mm² versus 12.3M / mm².
• Base clock: 1590 MHz versus 730 MHz.
• Boost clock: 2617 MHz versus 780 MHz.
• Memory clock: 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).
• Memory size: 96 GB versus 2 GB.
• Memory type: GDDR7 versus DDR3.
• Memory bus width: 512 bit versus 128 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: 1.79 TB/s versus 28.80 GB/s.
• Shading units: 24,064 versus 320.
• TMUs: 752 versus 20.
• ROPs: 192 versus 8.
• RT cores: 188 versus none.
• Tensor cores: 752 versus none.
• Pixel rate: 502.5 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 1,968.0 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s.
• FP32: 126.0 TFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS.
• FP16: 126.0 TFLOPS (1:1) versus not available.
• TDP: 600 W versus 30 W.
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus single-slot.
• Power connectors: 1x 16-pin versus none.
• Suggested PSU: 1000 W versus 200 W.
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8.
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.1b versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA.
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (11_1).
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.2.170.
• Dimensions: 267 mm length, 111 mm height, 40 mm width versus 168 mm length, 69 mm height, no width listed.
• Production status: Active versus End-of-life.
• Release date: 2025-03-17 versus 2013-10-07.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark runs between these two cards, and the win counts are 0 for both. Instead, the comparison relies on their individual benchmark scores and nearest rival data.

The RTX PRO 6000's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5996 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000) and AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001), and 0.2% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987) and NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5986). This is a curious data point: a modern server GPU scoring at the level of older mobile and entry-level desktop parts in this particular test. The percentile position of 34th among all GPUs suggests that, at least in this DX12 workload, the card does not dominate the broader field as its specifications might imply.

The R7 240's Geekbench OpenCL score of 5063 ties exactly with the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063, 0% delta), and sits 0.6% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4170M (5034), 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018), and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998). Its 30th percentile position is consistent with a low-end part from its era.

The closest comparable data point between the two cards, however, comes from the nearest rivals. The RTX PRO 6000's nearest rival list includes the AMD Radeon RX 6400, which scores 6001, essentially identical to the RTX PRO 6000's 5996. Meanwhile, the R7 240's nearest rivals are all older, low-power AMD parts. The two cards do not share any rival, which reinforces that they occupy different performance tiers despite the similar percentile rankings.

What the data implies is that the RTX PRO 6000's single benchmark result may not fully capture its capabilities, or the Steel Nomad test is not representative of its target workload. The R7 240's OpenCL score, on the other hand, reflects its modest compute abilities. Neither card has a decisive head-to-head win recorded, so the comparison rests on the broader specification and benchmark context.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server is the choice for anyone needing massive compute resources, modern API support, hardware ray tracing, tensor acceleration, and a 96 GB memory pool. Its 126.0 TFLOPS of FP32, 188 RT cores, 752 tensor cores, and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth make it suitable for professional server workloads, AI inference, and large-scale rendering. The 5 nm process, Active production status, and 2025 release date indicate a current-generation product with long-term relevance.

The AMD Radeon R7 240 is the choice for legacy systems, low-power builds, and basic display output. Its 30 W TDP, single-slot design, no power connectors, and 200 W suggested PSU make it easy to integrate into almost any chassis. The 2 GB DDR3 memory and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for 2D workloads and light 3D acceleration. Its End-of-life status and 2013 release date mean it is a product from a previous era, but its low power draw and simple installation requirements still have niche appeal.

The data does not support a recommendation of the R7 240 for any compute-heavy task. The RTX PRO 6000 is faster in every measurable compute metric, supports more modern APIs, and has vastly more memory and bandwidth. The only categories where the R7 240 wins are power consumption, physical size, and installation simplicity. For a server environment or professional workstation, the RTX PRO 6000 is the only sensible pick. For a secondary display card in an older PC, the R7 240 remains a functional option. The verdict, then, is context-dependent: choose the RTX PRO 6000 for performance and features, choose the R7 240 for efficiency and simplicity.