Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) vs Radeon R7 240

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 240 with Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), including specs and performance data.

R7 240
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
2.30

Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) outperforms R7 240 by a whopping 338% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking860447
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.16no data
Power efficiency5.37no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Xe LPG (2023)
GPU code nameOlandMeteor Lake iGPU
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)14 December 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$69 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores3204
Boost clock speed780 MHz1950 MHz
Number of transistors950 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Wattno data
Texture fill rate14.00no data
Floating-point processing power0.448 TFLOPSno data
ROPs8no data
TMUs20no data

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8no data
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsN/Ano data

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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1150 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth72 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGAno data
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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212_2
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data

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.

R7 240 2.30
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 10.08
+338%

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.

R7 240 1220
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 5295
+334%

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 HD5−6
−400%
25
+400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p13.80no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 13
+0%
13
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50
+0%
50
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 13
+0%
13
+0%
Dota 2 15
+0%
15
+0%
Far Cry 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Fortnite 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 39
+0%
39
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 15
+0%
15
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
World of Tanks 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Fortnite 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
World of Tanks 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Valorant 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

This is how R7 240 and Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) compete in popular games:

  • Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is 400% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.30 10.08
Recency 8 October 2013 14 December 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm

Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) has a 338.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 240 is a desktop card while Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 240
Radeon R7 240
Intel Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc)
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc)

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 1233 votes

Rate Radeon R7 240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.1 10 votes

Rate Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 240 or Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.