Radeon R7 240 vs HD 7660D

Place in the ranking	1029	850
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.10	0.16
Power efficiency	0.90	5.32
Architecture	TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	Devastator	Oland
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	2 October 2012 (12 years ago)	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$122	$69

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 240 has 60% better value for money than HD 7660D.

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	800 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	800 MHz	780 MHz
Number of transistors	1,303 million	950 million
Manufacturing process technology	32 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	19.20	14.00
Floating-point processing power	0.6144 TFLOPS	0.448 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	24	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).

Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	IGP	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	no data	168 mm
Width	IGP	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	System Shared	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	2 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	1150 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.2 (11_0)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	5.0	5.1
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	-

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.

HD 7660D 1.32

R7 240 2.33
+76.5%

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.

HD 7660D 508

R7 240 897
+76.6%

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.

HD 7660D 997

R7 240 1220
+22.4%

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:

Full HD

−76.5%

30−35
+76.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

7.18

2.30

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−75%

7−8
+75%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Hitman 3	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −71.4%	24−27 +71.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −75%	14−16 +75%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −66.7%	55−60 +66.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Hitman 3	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −71.4%	24−27 +71.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −75%	14−16 +75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −63.6%	18−20 +63.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −66.7%	55−60 +66.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Hitman 3	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −71.4%	24−27 +71.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −75%	14−16 +75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −63.6%	18−20 +63.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −66.7%	55−60 +66.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−50%

3−4
+50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 −71.4%	12−14 +71.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−75%

7−8
+75%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−66.7%

5−6
+66.7%

This is how HD 7660D and R7 240 compete in popular games:

R7 240 is 76% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.32	2.33
Recency	2 October 2012	8 October 2013
Chip lithography	32 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	50 Watt

R7 240 has a 76.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 240 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7660D in performance tests.

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