Radeon R7 240 vs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 with Radeon R7 240, including specs and performance data.

Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
2020
10.05
+331%

Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 outperforms R7 240 by a whopping 331% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking450850
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.16
Power efficiencyno data5.32
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeOland
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$69

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores96320
Boost clock speedno data780 MHz
Number of transistorsno data950 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data50 Watt
Texture fill rateno data14.00
Floating-point processing powerno data0.448 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data20

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 supportno dataPCIe 3.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x8
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataN/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 typeDDR4GDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1150 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data72 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 Connectorsno data1x 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 audiono data+
Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX 12_1DirectX® 12
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2

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.

Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 10.05
+331%
R7 240 2.33

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.

Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 5000
+310%
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.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+343%
7−8
−343%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+367%
6−7
−367%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+371%
14−16
−371%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+350%
12−14
−350%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+357%
7−8
−357%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+343%
7−8
−343%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+367%
6−7
−367%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+371%
14−16
−371%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+350%
12−14
−350%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+343%
7−8
−343%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+357%
7−8
−357%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+333%
6−7
−333%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+343%
7−8
−343%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+367%
6−7
−367%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+371%
14−16
−371%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+333%
6−7
−333%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+340%
10−11
−340%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+367%
9−10
−367%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.05 2.33
Recency 15 August 2020 8 October 2013
Chip lithography 10 nm 28 nm

Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 has a 331.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook card while Radeon R7 240 is a desktop 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.


Intel Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
AMD Radeon R7 240
Radeon R7 240

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.


3.9 15 votes

Rate Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 1194 votes

Rate Radeon R7 240 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.