Recommended System Requirements | ||
---|---|---|
Game | Radeon R7 240 2GB | Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Desktop |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 786% | 575% |
Assassins Creed: Valhalla | 711% | 518% |
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War | 684% | 498% |
FIFA 21 | 347% | 241% |
Grand Theft Auto VI | 1147% | 850% |
Hitman 3 | 1053% | 779% |
Genshin Impact | 786% | 575% |
Far Cry 6 | 1182% | 877% |
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands | 1171% | 868% |
Watch Dogs Legion | 755% | 552% |
In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Desktop are noticeably better than the AMD Radeon R7 240 2GB.
The R7 240 has a 330 MHz higher core clock speed and 12 more Texture Mapping Units than the Pro Graphics. This results in the R7 240 providing 11.4 GTexel/s better texturing performance. This still holds weight but shader performance is generally more relevant, particularly since both of these GPUs support at least DirectX 10.
The R7 240 has a 330 MHz higher core clock speed and 4 more Render Output Units than the Pro Graphics. This results in the R7 240 providing 4.2 GPixel/s better pixeling performance. However, both GPUs support DirectX 9 or above, and pixeling performance is only really relevant when comparing older cards.
The R7 240 was released less than a year after the Pro Graphics, and so they are likely to have similar driver support for optimizing performance when running the latest games.
The R7 240 has 2048 MB video memory, but the Pro Graphics does not have an entry, so the two GPUs cannot be reliably compared in this area.
The Radeon R7 240 2GB has 320 Shader Processing Units and the Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Desktop has 160. However, the actual shader performance of the R7 240 is 212 and the actual shader performance of the Pro Graphics is 314. The Pro Graphics having 102 better shader performance is not particularly notable, as altogether the R7 240 performs better when taking into account other relevant data.
The Pro Graphics transistor size technology is 6 nm (nanometers) smaller than the R7 240. This means that the Pro Graphics is expected to run very slightly cooler and achieve higher clock frequencies than the R7 240.
The Radeon R7 240 2GB requires 30 Watts to run and the Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Desktop requires 28 Watts. We would recommend a PSU with at least 400 Watts for the R7 240. The R7 240 requires 2 Watts more than the Pro Graphics to run. The difference is not significant enough for the R7 240 to have a noticeably larger impact on your yearly electricity bills than the Pro Graphics.
Core Speed | 730 MHz | ![]() | vs | 400 MHz | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boost Clock | 780 MHz | ![]() | vs | - | |
Architecture | GCN 1.1 Oland PRO | Haswell: GT3e | |||
OC Potential | Good |
![]() |
vs | None | |
Driver Support | Great |
![]() | vs | - | |
Release Date | 08 Oct 2013 | ![]() | vs | 03 Jun 2013 | |
GPU Link | GD Link | GD Link | |||
Approved | ![]() | ![]() | |||
Comparison |
1366x768 | 6.4
|
![]() |
vs | - | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1600x900 | 4.9
|
![]() |
vs | - | |
1920x1080 | 3.1
|
![]() |
vs | - | |
2560x1440 | 2.3
|
![]() |
vs | - | |
3840x2160 | 1.5
|
![]() |
vs | - |
Memory | 2048 MB | ![]() | vs | - | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Memory Speed | 900 MHz | ![]() | vs | 800 MHz | |
Memory Bus | 128 Bit | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 128 Bit |
Memory Type | DDR3 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | DDR3 |
Memory Bandwidth | 28.8GB/sec | ![]() | vs | 25.6GB/sec | |
L2 Cache | 512 KB | ![]() |
vs | - | |
Delta Color Compression | no | vs | no | ||
Memory Performance | 0% | ![]() |
vs | ![]() |
0% |
Comparison |
Shader Processing Units | 320 | ![]() | vs | 160 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Shader Performance | 10% | vs | ![]() | 15% | |
Technology | 28nm | vs | ![]() | 22nm | |
Texture Mapping Units | 20 | ![]() | vs | 8 | |
Texture Rate | 14.6 GTexel/s | ![]() | vs | 3.2 GTexel/s | |
Render Output Units | 8 | ![]() | vs | 4 | |
Pixel Rate | 5.8 GPixel/s | ![]() | vs | 1.6 GPixel/s | |
Comparison |
Max Digital Resolution (WxH) | 4096x2160 | ![]() | vs | 2560x1600 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
VGA Connections | 1 | ![]() | vs | 0 | |
DVI Connections | 1 | ![]() | vs | 0 | |
HDMI Connections | 1 | ![]() | vs | 0 | |
DisplayPort Connections | - | vs | - | ||
Comparison |
Max Power | 30 Watts | vs | ![]() | 28 Watts | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recommended PSU | 400 Watts & 18 Amps | - |
DirectX | 12.0 | ![]() | vs | 11.1 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Shader Model | 5.0 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 5.0 |
Open GL | 4.4 | ![]() | vs | 4.0 | |
Open CL | - | vs | - | ||
Notebook GPU | no | no | |||
SLI/Crossfire | no | vs | no | ||
Dedicated | yes | ![]() | vs | no | |
Comparison |
Recommended Processor | Intel Core i3-4130 3.4GHz | - | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recommended RAM | 4 GB | - | |||
Maximum Recommended Gaming Resolution | 1366x768 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 1366x768 |
Performance Value | ![]() |
---|
Mini Review | Note: This Graphics Card has 2 variants: one with DDR3 and another with GDDR5. This is the DDR3 Version. Radeon R7 240 2GB offers a core codenamed Oland PRO and thus features 320 Shader Processing Units, 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs, on a 128-bit bus width of standard DDR3. While the central unit runs at 730MHz and goes up to 780MHz, in Turbo Mode, the memory clock operates at 900MHz. With a rated board TDP of 30W, it requires no extra power connectors. Compared to Radeon R7 250, its performance is significantly lower (over 25% slower), especially at higher resolutions due to the limited memory bandwidth. Still, the TDP is relatively low and so this card may be used on low end systems and offer a reasonable upgrade, when compared to integrated graphics. | Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Desktop are found in some of the 2013 Haswell desktop processors. They feature 40 Execution Units (160 Shader Processing Units), 8 TMUs and 4 ROPs. They share system memory and so the memory channel and speed will depend on the users configuration. The best possible combination is a dual-channel bus-width with an operating memory clock of 800MHz. Its central unit and turbo frequency also depend on the CPU its embedded but it ranges from 400MHz to 1300MHz. Compared to Iris Graphics 5100 Desktop, they offer an additional eDRAM cache of 128MB and so might offer performance identical to a dedicated GeForce GT 640 or a Radeon HD 6670. |
---|