Quadro 410 vs Radeon R7 240

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 240 with Quadro 410, including specs and performance data.

R7 240
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
2.33
+106%

R7 240 outperforms 410 by a whopping 106% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8411068
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.160.06
Power efficiency5.602.15
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameOlandGK107
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)7 August 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$69 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 240 has 167% better value for money than Quadro 410.

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 cores320192
Core clock speedno data706 MHz
Boost clock speed780 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt38 Watt
Texture fill rate14.0011.30
Floating-point processing power0.448 TFLOPS0.2711 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs2016

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 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Length168 mm176 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsN/ANone

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1150 MHz891 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s14.26 GB/s

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 VGA1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort
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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan-1.1.126
CUDA-3.0

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.

R7 240 2.33
+106%
Quadro 410 1.13

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.

R7 240 899
+106%
Quadro 410 437

Gaming performance

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

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.33 1.13
Recency 8 October 2013 7 August 2012
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 512 MB
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 38 Watt

R7 240 has a 106.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Quadro 410, on the other hand, has 31.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 240 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 410 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 240 is a desktop card while Quadro 410 is a workstation one.


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

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
NVIDIA Quadro 410
Quadro 410

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 1153 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 13 votes

Rate Quadro 410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.