Winner
AMD Radeon R7 240
GPUBoss recommends the AMD Radeon R7 240 based on its noise and power.
See full details Radeon R7 240 vs HD 5770 |
Released October, 2013
AMD Radeon R7 240
- 730 MHz
- 2 GB DDR3
6.1 Out of 10
by hassan-mujtaba (Oct, 2013)The memory for the overclocked models would be configured at 1600 MHz which is 6.4 GHz effective, pumping out 307.2 FB/s compared to the reference 288 GB/s..
VS
Released October, 2009
ATi Radeon HD 5770
- 850 MHz
- 1 GB GDDR5
6.4 Out of 10
by techPowerUp! (Feb, 2010)Actually the cooler is considerably quieter than AMD's HD 5770 reference cooler, but still audible.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of R7 240 vs 5770 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 | |
| 6.4 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
AMD Radeon R7 240GPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| More memory | 2,048 MB | vs | 1,024 MB | 2x more memory | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower TDP | 30W | vs | 108W | 3.6x lower TDP | |||
| |||||||
| Much higher effective memory clock speed | 4,800 MHz | vs | 1,800 MHz | Around 2.8x higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Higher memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | vs | 28.8 GB/s | Around 2.8x higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Higher clock speed | 850 MHz | vs | 730 MHz | More than 15% higher clock speed | |||
| Much better manhattan score | 3,507.76 | vs | 1,769.8 | Around 2x better manhattan score | |||
| Better PassMark score | 1,697 | vs | 966 | More than 75% better PassMark score | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 1,360 GFLOPS | vs | 499.2 GFLOPS | Around 2.8x better floating-point performance | |||
| More shading units | 800 | vs | 320 | 480 more shading units | |||
| Higher texture rate | 34 GTexel/s | vs | 15.6 GTexel/s | Around 2.2x higher texture rate | |||
| Slightly higher pixel rate | 13.6 GPixel/s | vs | 6.24 GPixel/s | Around 2.2x higher pixel rate | |||
| Higher memory clock speed | 1,200 MHz | vs | 900 MHz | Around 35% higher memory clock speed | |||
| 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 | |||
| Better sky diver factor score | 140.24 | vs | 102.46 | More than 35% better sky diver factor score | |||
| More compute units | 10 | vs | 5 | Twice as many compute units | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Radeon R7 240 vs HD 5770
PassMark Industry standard benchmark for overall graphics card performanceData courtesy Passmark
T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench
Manhattan (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench
Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark
Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark
Cloud Gate Factor Data courtesy FutureMark
PassMark Direct Compute Measures performance of general-purpose computing using Microsoft DirectCompute
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| R7 240 vs R7 370 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $98 | ||
| R7 240 vs 730 | ||
| | VS |  |
| R7 240 vs 710 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $107 | ||
| R7 240 vs 630 | ||
| | VS |  |
| R7 240 vs 1030 | ||
| | VS |  |
| R7 240 vs R7 250 | ||
| | VS |  |
| R7 240 vs 750 Ti | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $286 | ||
| 1060 vs RX 580 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $286 | ||
| 1060 vs 1050 Ti | ||
 | VS | |
| $286 | ||
| 970 vs 1060 | ||
| | VS | |
| 970 vs 1050 Ti | ||
 | VS |  |
| 1050 vs MX150 | ||
 | VS | |
| 960 vs 1050 Ti | ||
| | VS | |
| 970 vs 960 | ||
