Radeon R7 240 

Released October, 2013
  • 730 MHz
  • 2 GB DDR3
5.5 Out of 10

Explore 4 desktops with the Radeon R7 240

GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of the Radeon R7 240 among Desktop GPUs

Gaming

Radeon R7 240
5.5
Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more

Graphics

Radeon R7 240
5.4
T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more

Computing

Radeon R7 240
n.d.
Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more

Performance per Watt

Radeon R7 240
7.4
Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more

Value

Radeon R7 240
n.d.
Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more

Noise and Power

Radeon R7 240
9.9
TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more

5.5

Overall Score

Radeon R7 240
5.5

Benchmarks Real world tests of the Radeon R7 240

PassMark Industry standard benchmark for overall graphics card performanceData courtesy Passmark

Radeon R7 240
966

T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R7 240
3,149.55
Radeon R7 370
3,357.04

Manhattan (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R7 240
1,769.8
Radeon R7 370
3,715.28

Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Radeon R7 240
10.89

Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Radeon R7 240
102.46

Cloud Gate Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Radeon R7 240
9.62

PassMark Direct Compute Measures performance of general-purpose computing using Microsoft DirectCompute

Radeon R7 240
621

Specifications Full list of technical specs

gpu

GPU brand AMD
GPU name Oland
Market Desktop
Clock speed 730 MHz
Turbo clock speed 780 MHz
Is dual GPU No
Reference card None

raw performance

Shading units 320
Texture mapping units 20
Render output processors 8
Compute units 5
Pixel rate 6.24 GPixel/s
Texture rate 15.6 GTexel/s
Floating-point performance 499.2 GFLOPS

memory

Memory clock speed 900 MHz
Effective memory clock speed 1,800 MHz
Memory bus 128 bit
Memory 2,048 MB
Memory type DDR3
Memory bandwidth 28.8 GB/s

noise and power

TDP 30W
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 9 comments.
The thing is that the wattage is 245W if I play gta 5 half a day and I measure it. Even this 30W gpu is critical. My cpu is a bit overclocked consuming more then 130 watts its a core 2 quad after all. I would like to buy a new PSU but I'm out of money so the gt 1030 was the best shot.
if it's a pre build you can 75w gpu for 255w,because most of them only use 120-140maybe you use more
well because i wanted a 30W graphics card for my 255W PSU
it's still bad wtf why didn't you add 20-30dollars new to get a 1050 150% better you just bought the r7 240 of 2017 that'snot an upgrade
I upgraded to a GT 1030 today ;) A great experience.
Bro I have an r7 240 2gb ddr3 version overclocked at 1000 mhz and i am running crysis 3 low settings and 1024x768 res with 30-40 fps and that with a quad core cpu overclocked at 3ghz and I dont like it. I will switch to nVidia.
Before u talking trash..do u own r7 240?.. i have both graphic card 240 n 250 they are working great n playable modern game with medium setting without any bullshit.. like blue screen or whatever problem... if u want performance and low tdp go with nvidia..
Linus say this crap, Linus is wrong, i can play cs go on ultra with this.
This GPU should have never been labeled a R7 series card! The R7 240 is only slightly better than a crap GT520/GT610, It is amazing how bad the performance is with the R7 250 and R7 240. The R7 250X is not bad, But the 260X should have had the label of 250X and the R7 260 should have been labeled the R7 250, And the R7 250X should have been the R7 240. AMD did improve the mid and upper cards by doing that. But for some reason they lowered the performance of the low mid range cards. Why? Why? Some poor newbs probably paid around $80-$90 bucks for that crap card thinking they were getting performance close to the 7730 and then found out different. Hell they even have DDR3 versions of the lower R7 cards! WTH? The R7 Series is supposed to be for budget gamers, So this means the R7 series is considered to be gaming cards, So they should at'least have the common courtesy to provide GDDR5 V-Ram. AMD's R9 series is nice with the R9 270/270X and (R9 280/280X before they messed up by replacing 3GB cards with a 2GB R9 285 of similar performance, Kinda bizarre! Because the R9 285 is really not much faster, And it will actually loose out to the 280/280X cards in higher resolutions! So it makes no sense to do customers like that! When you pay around $250 you should get a card that has more than 2GB, Because what would be the point? You may as well get a R9 270/270X for cheaper. The reason people pay more is because they want higher resolution or multi monitors. And the R9 285 can't do it with only 2GB! But the R9 290/290X, And the King of all cards the R9 295X2, And the R7 265 and R7 260/260X are also great performers for the price.
comments powered by Disqus