Radeon R7 240 vs GeForce 840M

Place in the ranking	787	841
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.16
Power efficiency	6.13	5.55
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GM108	Oland
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	12 March 2014 (10 years ago)	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$69

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	384	320
Core clock speed	1029 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1124 MHz	780 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	950 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	17.98	14.00
Floating-point processing power	0.8632 TFLOPS	0.448 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	16	20

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	no data	168 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	N/A

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	DDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1001 MHz	1150 MHz
Memory bandwidth	16.02 GB/s	72 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	No outputs	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire	-	+
FreeSync	-	+
DDMA audio	no data	+
GPU Boost	2.0	no data
Optimus	+	-
GameWorks	+	-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	-
CUDA	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 840M 2.83
+21.5%

R7 240 2.33

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce 840M 1091
+21.4%

R7 240 899

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GeForce 840M 1573
+28.9%

R7 240 1220

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p	45 +28.6%	35−40 −28.6%
Full HD	17 +41.7%	12−14 −41.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
+25%

4−5

−25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +25%	12−14 −25%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +22.2%	18−20 −22.2%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +26.7%	30−33 −26.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +25%	12−14 −25%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +22.2%	18−20 −22.2%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	23 +27.8%	18−20 −27.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +26.7%	30−33 −26.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +25%	12−14 −25%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +22.2%	18−20 −22.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6 +50%	4−5 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +26.7%	30−33 −26.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+40%

5−6

−40%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 +41.7%	12−14 −41.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+50%

4−5

−50%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

This is how GeForce 840M and R7 240 compete in popular games:

GeForce 840M is 29% faster in 900p
GeForce 840M is 42% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.83	2.33
Recency	12 March 2014	8 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	50 Watt

GeForce 840M has a 21.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 51.5% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 840M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 840M is a notebook card while Radeon R7 240 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.