GPU Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce 930A vs AMD Radeon R7 240

The head-to-head benchmark comparison between these two end-of-life graphics cards shows a narrow but decisive edge for the NVIDIA GeForce 930A. In the single Geekbench OpenCL test available for both, the 930A scores 5,317 points against the R7 240's 5,063, a 5% advantage that places the NVIDIA part in the 31st percentile of all GPUs versus the AMD card's 30th percentile. This slim margin is remarkable given how differently the two cards are engineered, and it raises the question of whether raw architecture matters more than memory bandwidth at this performance tier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark result is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA GeForce 930A delivers 5,317 points and the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5,063. That 5% delta is the entire competitive gap between them, and it flatters the NVIDIA card given its hardware configuration. The 930A achieves this with a 64-bit memory bus and a peak bandwidth of 16.02 GB/s, while the R7 240 has double the bus width at 128-bit and 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, an 80% advantage in raw memory throughput that fails to translate into a benchmark win.

What makes the 930A's victory more interesting is its positioning against its own rivals. The 930A's nearest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce 840M at 5,322 points, a -0.1% delta, meaning the two are statistically identical in performance. The 930A edges out the GeForce GTX 980M by 0.2% (5,308 points) and the GeForce 940M by 0.6% (5,284 points). The only rival it trails by a meaningful margin is the AMD Radeon R7 M445 at 5,358 points, a -0.8% delta. These results suggest the 930A is a remarkably consistent performer, landing within 1% of four other GPUs across NVIDIA and AMD lineups.

The R7 240, by contrast, has a less favorable competitive position. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at 5,063 points with a 0% delta, identical scores. It beats the AMD FirePro W4170M by 0.6% (5,034 points), the Radeon R5 M430 by 0.9% (5,018 points), and the Radeon R7 Graphics by 1.3% (4,998 points). The pattern here is clear: the R7 240 is the reference point for a cluster of similarly performing AMD parts, whereas the 930A sits in a slightly higher performance band.

Architecture Differences

The most striking architectural contrast is in compute resources versus memory configuration. The NVIDIA GeForce 930A uses the GM108 chip built on TSMC's 28 nm process, packing 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die for a density of 13.2M transistors per mm². It runs at a base clock of 928 MHz with a boost of 941 MHz, and its 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs produce a pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 22.58 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 722.7 GFLOPS.

The AMD Radeon R7 240, built on the Oland chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, also uses TSMC's 28 nm process but carries 950 million transistors on the same 77 mm² die, yielding a slightly lower density of 12.3M transistors per mm². Its clocks are lower, 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost, and it has fewer compute units: 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This results in a pixel rate of 6.240 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 15.60 GTexel/s, and 499.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance. In every computational metric except memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA card leads by margins ranging from 15% to 45%.

The memory subsystem tells the opposite story. Both cards have 2 GB of DDR3, but the R7 240's 128-bit bus versus the 930A's 64-bit bus gives AMD a decisive bandwidth advantage: 28.80 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s. Memory clocks also differ, with the 930A running at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) versus the R7 240's 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The larger bus width compensates for the lower clock, making the R7 240 the clear winner in memory-intensive scenarios, yet the benchmark does not reflect this.

API support is another differentiator. The 930A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer Vulkan revision on NVIDIA's side suggests better long-term driver support for modern titles, while AMD's slightly higher DirectX feature level (11_1 vs 11_0) is a minor edge in legacy compatibility.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 930A wins in compute-heavy workloads, as evidenced by its 5% benchmark lead and its substantial advantages in shading units (384 vs 320), texture rate (22.58 GTexel/s vs 15.60 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (722.7 GFLOPS vs 499.2 GFLOPS). This makes it the stronger choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks, OpenCL acceleration, and games that rely more on pixel and texture processing than memory bandwidth. Its higher base and boost clocks (928/941 MHz vs 730/780 MHz) further reinforce this advantage in latency-sensitive workloads.

The AMD Radeon R7 240 wins in memory-bandwidth-bound scenarios. Its 28.80 GB/s bandwidth is nearly double the 930A's 16.02 GB/s, and the 128-bit bus is a significant advantage for applications that stream large textures or handle high-resolution framebuffers. The R7 240 also has a slight edge in DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 12_0), which could matter for certain older titles that leverage that feature set. Its physical form factor is also more conventional: a single-slot, 168 mm (6.6 inches) card with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA outputs, versus the 930A's IGP-style slot width and "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs, which indicate it is designed for laptops or compact systems rather than desktop expansion.

Power consumption is nearly identical, with the 930A rated at 33 W and the R7 240 at 30 W, and neither requires a power connector. The R7 240 suggests a 200 W PSU, while the 930A lists no suggested PSU, reflecting its integrated form factor.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930A scores 5,317 points in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 5% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 240's 5,063 points.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 has 28.80 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is 80% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 930A's 16.02 GB/s. The R7 240 uses a 128-bit bus while the 930A uses a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930A has 384 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 has 320 shading units, a 20% difference in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930A delivers 722.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 499.2 GFLOPS for the AMD Radeon R7 240, a 45% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Do both cards use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the NVIDIA chip has 1,020 million transistors versus AMD's 950 million, both on a 77 mm² die.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan support?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930A supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, a newer revision on the NVIDIA side.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear, if narrow, victory for the NVIDIA GeForce 930A. It wins the only head-to-head test by 5% and leads in every computational metric, shading units, texture rate, pixel rate, FP32 throughput, and clock speeds. Its 31st percentile ranking versus the R7 240's 30th is consistent with this edge. For users whose workloads are compute-bound, the 930A is the better choice, and its Vulkan 1.4 support makes it more future-proof for modern API titles.

The AMD Radeon R7 240, however, is not without a case. Its memory bandwidth advantage is enormous, 80% higher than the 930A, and that could translate into wins in specific scenarios like high-resolution texture streaming or memory-heavy compute tasks that the Geekbench OpenCL test does not isolate. The R7 240 also offers a more versatile desktop form factor with standard display outputs (DVI, HDMI 1.4a, VGA) and a single-slot design, making it easier to integrate into a conventional PC. Its launch MSRP was 69 USD, which is notable context for its original positioning.

The data does not support a universal recommendation. For general compute performance and API support, the NVIDIA GeForce 930A wins. For memory-bandwidth-bound applications or desktop integration flexibility, the AMD Radeon R7 240 holds distinct advantages. The 5% benchmark gap is real but modest, and the underlying architectural differences suggest that real-world performance will vary more than the single test score indicates.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 930A | AMD Radeon R7 240 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GM108 | Oland |

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | GeForce 900A | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 950 million |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 928 MHz | 730 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 941 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.02 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 320 |

| TMUs | 24 | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.528 GPixel/s | 6.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.58 GTexel/s | 15.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 722.7 GFLOPS | 499.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 33 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None | 200 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | N/A | 168 mm (6.6 inches) x 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2015-03-12 | 2013-10-07 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800A | Sea Islands |

| Successor | None | Pirate Islands |