AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one shared benchmark between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M and the AMD Radeon R5 M240: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results are decisive. The GTX 950M scores 9,745 points, while the R5 M240 manages 6,975 points. That is a 39.7% advantage for the NVIDIA part in this single head-to-head comparison.

To put that delta into context, look at where each GPU sits among its closest rivals. The GTX 950M's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 8,135. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M360 at 8,129 (a 0.1% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce 945M at 8,099 (0.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA GRID K2 at 8,080 (0.7% ahead). The GTX 950M also sits within 0.4% of the desktop-class NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, which scores 8,167. In other words, the 950M is firmly in a cluster of mid-range mobile and workstation parts, neither dominating nor being dominated by any of them.

The R5 M240, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 6,975, placing it in a lower tier. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M at 6,946 (0.4% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M at 7,023 (0.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA T600 at 7,035 (0.8% ahead). The AMD FirePro M5100 trails at 6,830, meaning the R5 M240 is 2.1% faster than that workstation part. The picture is clear: the R5 M240 competes with older high-end mobile GPUs, while the GTX 950M competes with newer mid-range parts. The 39.7% gap between the two in the OpenCL test is not a statistical outlier; it reflects a genuine tier separation.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and vastly different silicon budgets. The GTX 950M uses the GM107 chip, built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The R5 M240 uses AMD's Jet chip, based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture, also on TSMC's 28 nm node. However, the Jet die is far smaller: 56 mm² with 690 million transistors, giving a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. Both are 28 nm parts, but NVIDIA's chip is more than 2.6 times larger in die area and carries nearly 2.7 times the transistor count.

The execution resources differ proportionally. The GTX 950M has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The R5 M240 has exactly half the shading units at 320, plus 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs. This halving of resources across the board explains why the R5 M240's pixel rate is 8.24 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s for the GTX 950M, and its texture rate is 20.60 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute throughput tells the same story: 659.2 GFLOPS for the AMD part, 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the NVIDIA part, a 2.18x gap that mirrors the shading unit count.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The GTX 950M ships with 4 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M240 has 1,024 MB (1 GB) of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, halving the bus width and delivering just 14.40 GB/s. Clock speeds are close: the GTX 950M runs at 993 MHz base and 1,124 MHz boost, while the R5 M240 runs at 1,000 MHz base and 1,030 MHz boost. The AMD part actually has a slightly higher base clock, but the NVIDIA part boosts 94 MHz higher. Memory clocks are identical at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective), so the bandwidth gap comes entirely from the bus width.

API support shows a subtle advantage for AMD. The R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GTX 950M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6. For Vulkan, the GTX 950M lists version 1.4, while the R5 M240 lists 1.2.170. Neither part has ray tracing or tensor cores; both are pure rasterization designs. The GTX 950M is specified at 75 W TDP with no power connectors and an IGP slot width, while the R5 M240 has no TDP listed in the database. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 950M wins everywhere the two parts overlap. The single recorded head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, goes to NVIDIA by 39.7%. The compute, texture, pixel, and memory bandwidth figures all favor the GTX 950M by roughly 2x. In any workload that stresses shading units, texture fetch, or fill rate, the 950M should outperform the R5 M240 by a wide margin. The 4 GB memory capacity versus 1 GB also matters for modern game textures and larger datasets, since the 950M can hold more working data without spilling to system memory.

The R5 M240 has no recorded benchmark wins against the GTX 950M. Its only advantage is a slightly higher base clock (1,000 MHz versus 993 MHz) and a higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0). In practice, the base clock difference is negligible, and the DirectX 11_1 feature set rarely translates into measurable performance gains in real workloads. The R5 M240 also has a smaller die and lower transistor count, which historically implies lower absolute power draw, but the database does not list a TDP for the AMD part, so that remains qualitative.

For specific use cases, the GTX 950M is the clear choice for gaming on a laptop, especially at 1080p with reduced settings. The 4 GB frame buffer and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth give it room for textures and effects that the R5 M240's 1 GB and 14.40 GB/s cannot handle. The R5 M240 might suffice for basic desktop compositing, older or lighter esports titles, and video playback, but the benchmark data does not support any scenario where it beats the GTX 950M.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 950M than the R5 M240 in the recorded benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 950M scores 9,745 versus 6,975 for the R5 M240, a 39.7% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two GPUs?

A: The GTX 950M has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M240 has 1,024 MB (1 GB) of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do these GPUs support modern APIs like Vulkan and DirectX 12?

A: Both support DirectX 12, but the R5 M240 supports feature level 11_1 while the GTX 950M supports 11_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6. For Vulkan, the GTX 950M lists version 1.4 and the R5 M240 lists 1.2.170.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 950M has 640 shading units, double the 320 shading units in the R5 M240. The NVIDIA part also has 40 TMUs versus 20, and 16 ROPs versus 8.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size of each chip?

A: The GTX 950M's GM107 chip has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The R5 M240's Jet chip has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process.

Q: Are there any benchmark wins for the R5 M240 against the GTX 950M?

A: No. The database records one head-to-head benchmark, and the GTX 950M wins it. The R5 M240 has zero wins in this comparison.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Chip: GM107 (NVIDIA) versus Jet (AMD)
• Architecture: Maxwell (NVIDIA) versus GCN 1.0 (AMD)
• Generation: GeForce 900M (NVIDIA) versus Gem System (R5 M200) (AMD)
• Transistors: 1,870 million (NVIDIA) versus 690 million (AMD)
• Die Size: 148 mm² (NVIDIA) versus 56 mm² (AMD)
• Transistor Density: 12.6M / mm² (NVIDIA) versus 12.3M / mm² (AMD)
• Base Clock: 993 MHz (NVIDIA) versus 1,000 MHz (AMD)
• Boost Clock: 1,124 MHz (NVIDIA) versus 1,030 MHz (AMD)
• Memory Size: 4 GB (NVIDIA) versus 1,024 MB (AMD)
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit (NVIDIA) versus 64 bit (AMD)
• Memory Bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s (NVIDIA) versus 14.40 GB/s (AMD)
• Shading Units: 640 (NVIDIA) versus 320 (AMD)
• TMUs: 40 (NVIDIA) versus 20 (AMD)
• ROPs: 16 (NVIDIA) versus 8 (AMD)
• Pixel Rate: 17.98 GPixel/s (NVIDIA) versus 8.24 GPixel/s (AMD)
• Texture Rate: 44.96 GTexel/s (NVIDIA) versus 20.60 GTexel/s (AMD)
• FP32: 1,438.7 GFLOPS (NVIDIA) versus 659.2 GFLOPS (AMD)
• TDP: 75 W (NVIDIA) versus not listed (AMD)
• Slot Width: IGP (NVIDIA) versus not listed (AMD)
• Power Connectors: None (NVIDIA) versus not listed (AMD)
• Vulkan Version: 1.4 (NVIDIA) versus 1.2.170 (AMD)
• DirectX Feature Level: 12 (11_0) (NVIDIA) versus 12 (11_1) (AMD)
• Release Date: 2015-03-12 (NVIDIA) versus 2014-09-17 (AMD)
• Predecessor: GeForce 800M (NVIDIA) versus Solar System (AMD)
• Successor: GeForce 10 Mobile (NVIDIA) versus Polaris Mobile (AMD)

Fields that are the same include process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), memory type (DDR3), memory clock (900 MHz, 1,800 Mbps effective), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), and production status (end-of-life).

The Verdict

The data leaves no ambiguity. The GTX 950M is the faster GPU by a 39.7% margin in the only shared benchmark, and its hardware specifications reinforce that result across every measurable category. If you are choosing between these two for a laptop, the GTX 950M is the only reasonable pick for gaming, GPU-accelerated compute, or any workload that uses the shading units, texture units, or memory bandwidth.

The R5 M240's only recorded advantages are a 7 MHz higher base clock and a DirectX 11_1 feature level versus 11_0. Neither translates into a benchmark win. The R5 M240 also has a smaller die and fewer transistors, which may suggest lower absolute power consumption, but the database does not list a TDP to confirm that. Its 1 GB memory capacity is a hard limit for modern games, and its 64-bit bus halves available bandwidth.

For the average laptop buyer, the GTX 950M sits comfortably in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, surrounded by rivals like the R9 M360 and GTX 980 within 0.4% of its score. The R5 M240 sits in the 39th percentile, near older GTX 675M and GTX 680M parts. That percentile difference of three points understates the real-world gap, because the 950M's nearest rivals are all newer, more capable parts, while the R5 M240's rivals are older flagships.

Choose the GTX 950M for any performance-sensitive task. Choose the R5 M240 only if you are constrained by a system that cannot physically accommodate the GTX 950M's requirements, though both are end-of-life products and the database does not list dimensions or power draw for the AMD part. The verdict from the recorded data is simple: the GTX 950M wins this comparison outright.