Radeon R7 240 vs HD 4850 |
VS
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of R7 240 vs 4850 among Desktop GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Value | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| More memory | 2,048 MB | vs | 512 MB | 4x more memory | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher clock speed | 730 MHz | vs | 625 MHz | More than 15% higher clock speed | |||
| Lower TDP | 30W | vs | 110W | 3.7x lower TDP | |||
| |||||||
| Higher memory bandwidth | 63.55 GB/s | vs | 28.8 GB/s | Around 2.2x higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Slightly better floating-point performance | 1,000 GFLOPS | vs | 499.2 GFLOPS | More than 2x better floating-point performance | |||
| More shading units | 800 | vs | 320 | 480 more shading units | |||
| Wider memory bus | 256 bit | vs | 128 bit | 2x wider memory bus | |||
| More render output processors | 16 | vs | 8 | Twice as many render output processors | |||
| More texture mapping units | 40 | vs | 20 | Twice as many texture mapping units | |||
| More compute units | 10 | vs | 5 | Twice as many compute units | |||
| Better sky diver factor score | 124.95 | vs | 102.46 | More than 20% better sky diver factor score | |||
| Higher memory clock speed | 993 MHz | vs | 900 MHz | More than 10% higher memory clock speed | |||
Report a correction
