GeForce Go 7950 GTX vs Radeon R5 M240
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M240 and GeForce Go 7950 GTX, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R5 M240 outperforms Go 7950 GTX by an impressive 75% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1069 | 1189 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.04 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Jet | G71 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 18 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 12 October 2006 (18 years ago) |
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 | 320 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 575 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.60 | 13.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6592 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 20 | 24 |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | Not Listed | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-III |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | Not Listed | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 0 MB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | Not Listed | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 44.8 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 | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | N/A |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
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.
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.
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 | 14
+75%
| 8−9
−75%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+13.8%
|
27−30
−13.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+42.1%
|
18−20
−42.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+13.8%
|
27−30
−13.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+13.8%
|
27−30
−13.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how R5 M240 and Go 7950 GTX compete in popular games:
- R5 M240 is 75% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R5 M240 is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 M240 is ahead in 30 tests (86%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (14%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.19 | 0.68 |
| Recency | 18 September 2014 | 12 October 2006 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 90 nm |
R5 M240 has a 75% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R5 M240 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 7950 GTX in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
