Radeon R7 240 vs RX 5600 XT

Place in the ranking	144	852
Place by popularity	80	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	53.56	0.16
Power efficiency	16.19	5.35
Architecture	RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	Navi 10	Oland
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	21 January 2020 (5 years ago)	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$279	$69

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 5600 XT has 33375% better value for money than R7 240.

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	2304	320
Core clock speed	1130 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1560 MHz	780 MHz
Number of transistors	10,300 million	950 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	224.6	14.00
Floating-point processing power	7.188 TFLOPS	0.448 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	8
TMUs	144	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	PCIe 4.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	267 mm	168 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	14000 MHz	1150 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288.0 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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	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	12 (12_1)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	-

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.

RX 5600 XT 35.28
+1414%

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.

RX 5600 XT 13563
+1412%

R7 240 897

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.

RX 5600 XT 22058
+1708%

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:

Full HD	108 +1443%	7−8 −1443%
1440p	62 +1450%	4−5 −1450%
4K	36 +1700%	2−3 −1700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.58 +282%	9.86 −282%
1440p	4.50 +283%	17.25 −283%
4K	7.75 +345%	34.50 −345%

RX 5600 XT has 282% lower cost per frame in 1080p
RX 5600 XT has 283% lower cost per frame in 1440p
RX 5600 XT has 345% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	77 +1440%	5−6 −1440%
Cyberpunk 2077	83 +1560%	5−6 −1560%
Elden Ring	113 +1514%	7−8 −1514%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	95−100 +1533%	6−7 −1533%
Counter-Strike 2	63 +1475%	4−5 −1475%
Cyberpunk 2077	69 +1625%	4−5 −1625%
Forza Horizon 4	190 +1483%	12−14 −1483%
Metro Exodus	139 +1444%	9−10 −1444%
Red Dead Redemption 2	112 +1500%	7−8 −1500%
Valorant	179 +1690%	10−11 −1690%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	95−100 +1533%	6−7 −1533%
Counter-Strike 2	53 +1667%	3−4 −1667%
Cyberpunk 2077	59 +1867%	3−4 −1867%
Dota 2	146 +1522%	9−10 −1522%
Elden Ring	141 +1467%	9−10 −1467%
Far Cry 5	66 +1550%	4−5 −1550%
Fortnite	160−170 +1500%	10−11 −1500%
Forza Horizon 4	158 +1480%	10−11 −1480%
Grand Theft Auto V	126 +1475%	8−9 −1475%
Metro Exodus	94 +1467%	6−7 −1467%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	190−200 +1492%	12−14 −1492%
Red Dead Redemption 2	53 +1667%	3−4 −1667%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	120−130 +1425%	8−9 −1425%
Valorant	87 +1640%	5−6 −1640%
World of Tanks	270−280 +1450%	18−20 −1450%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	95−100 +1533%	6−7 −1533%
Counter-Strike 2	47 +1467%	3−4 −1467%
Cyberpunk 2077	50 +1567%	3−4 −1567%
Dota 2	168 +1580%	10−11 −1580%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +1433%	6−7 −1433%
Forza Horizon 4	141 +1467%	9−10 −1467%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	190−200 +1492%	12−14 −1492%
Valorant	148 +1544%	9−10 −1544%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	61 +1425%	4−5 −1425%
Elden Ring	67 +1575%	4−5 −1575%
Grand Theft Auto V	61 +1425%	4−5 −1425%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +1650%	10−11 −1650%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35 +1650%	2−3 −1650%
World of Tanks	220−230 +1507%	14−16 −1507%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 +1575%	4−5 −1575%
Counter-Strike 2	29 +2800%	1−2 −2800%
Cyberpunk 2077	30 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
Far Cry 5	110−120 +1514%	7−8 −1514%
Forza Horizon 4	97 +1517%	6−7 −1517%
Metro Exodus	88 +1660%	5−6 −1660%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +1867%	3−4 −1867%
Valorant	97 +1517%	6−7 −1517%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Dota 2	63 +1475%	4−5 −1475%
Elden Ring	25 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Grand Theft Auto V	63 +1475%	4−5 −1475%
Metro Exodus	30 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +1500%	7−8 −1500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	23 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	63 +1475%	4−5 −1475%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +1900%	2−3 −1900%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +1650%	2−3 −1650%
Cyberpunk 2077	12	0−1
Dota 2	99 +1550%	6−7 −1550%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +1567%	3−4 −1567%
Fortnite	45−50 +1500%	3−4 −1500%
Forza Horizon 4	57 +1800%	3−4 −1800%
Valorant	38 +1800%	2−3 −1800%

This is how RX 5600 XT and R7 240 compete in popular games:

RX 5600 XT is 1443% faster in 1080p
RX 5600 XT is 1450% faster in 1440p
RX 5600 XT is 1700% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	35.28	2.33
Recency	21 January 2020	8 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	7 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	50 Watt

RX 5600 XT has a 1414.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

R7 240, on the other hand, has 200% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 5600 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.

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