Select any two GPUs for comparison

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Radeon R7 240 2GB FirePro V5900
Cyberpunk 2077 786% 579%
Hitman 3 1053% 783%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 711% 521%
Resident Evil 8 786% 579%
FIFA 21 347% 243%
Grand Theft Auto VI 1147% 856%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 684% 501%
Genshin Impact 786% 579%
The Medium 1006% 747%
Far Cry 6 1182% 883%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the AMD FirePro V5900 are noticeably better than the AMD Radeon R7 240 2GB.

The R7 240 has a 130 MHz higher core clock speed than the FirePro V5900, but the FirePro V5900 has 12 more Texture Mapping Units than the R7 240. As a result, the FirePro V5900 exhibits a 4.6 GTexel/s better Texture Fill Rate than the R7 240. 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 130 MHz higher core clock speed than the FirePro V5900, but the FirePro V5900 has 24 more Render Output Units than the R7 240. As a result, the FirePro V5900 exhibits a 13.4 GPixel/s better Pixel Fill Rate than the R7 240. However, both GPUs support DirectX 9 or above, and pixeling performance is only really relevant when comparing older cards.

The R7 240 was released over a year more recently than the FirePro V5900, and so the R7 240 is likely to have better driver support, meaning it will be more optimized for running the latest games when compared to the FirePro V5900.

The Radeon R7 240 2GB and the FirePro V5900 have the same amount of video memory, but are likely to provide slightly different experiences when displaying game textures at high resolutions.

The FirePro V5900 has 99.2 GB/sec greater memory bandwidth than the R7 240, which means that the memory performance of the FirePro V5900 is massively better than the R7 240.

The Radeon R7 240 2GB has 320 Shader Processing Units and the FirePro V5900 has 512. However, the actual shader performance of the R7 240 is 212 and the actual shader performance of the FirePro V5900 is 200. The R7 240 having 12 better shader performance is not particularly notable, as altogether the FirePro V5900 performs better when taking into account other relevant data.

The R7 240 transistor size technology is 12 nm (nanometers) smaller than the FirePro V5900. This means that the R7 240 is expected to run slightly cooler and achieve higher clock frequencies than the FirePro V5900.

The Radeon R7 240 2GB requires 30 Watts to run and the FirePro V5900 requires 75 Watts. We would recommend a PSU with at least 400 Watts for the R7 240 and a PSU with at least 400 Watts for the FirePro V5900. The FirePro V5900 requires 45 Watts more than the R7 240 to run. The difference is significant enough that the FirePro V5900 may have a slight adverse affect on your yearly electricity bills in comparison to the R7 240.

Game FPS Benchmarks On Ultra

GPU Architecture

Core Speed730 MHzvs600 MHz
Boost Clock780 MHzvs-
ArchitectureGCN 1.1 Oland PROCayman LE GL
OC Potential Good vs Fair
Driver Support Great vs -
Release Date08 Oct 2013vs24 May 2011
GPU LinkGD LinkGD Link

Resolution Performance

green tick vs -
green tick vs -
green tick vs -
green tick vs -
green tick vs -

GPU Memory

Memory2048 MBvs2048 MB
Memory Speed900 MHzvs1000 MHz
Memory Bus128 Bitvs256 Bit
Memory TypeDDR3vsGDDR5
Memory Bandwidth28.8GB/secvs128GB/sec
L2 Cache 512 KB green tick vs -
Delta Color Compression no vs no
Memory Performance 0% green tick vs green tick 0%

GPU Display

Shader Processing Units320vs512
Actual Shader Performance10%vs10%
Texture Mapping Units20vs32
Texture Rate14.6 GTexel/svs19.2 GTexel/s
Render Output Units8vs32
Pixel Rate5.8 GPixel/svs19.2 GPixel/s

GPU Outputs

Max Digital Resolution (WxH)4096x2160vs2560x1600
VGA Connections1vs0
DVI Connections1vs1
HDMI Connections1vs0
DisplayPort Connections-vs-

GPU Power Requirements

Max Power30 Wattsvs75 Watts
Recommended PSU400 Watts & 18 Ampsvs400 Watts

GPU Features

Shader Model5.0vs5.0
Open GL4.4vs4.1
Open CL-vs-
Notebook GPUnono

GPU Supporting Hardware

Recommended ProcessorIntel Core i3-4130 3.4GHz-
Recommended RAM4 GB-
Maximum Recommended Gaming Resolution1366x768-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

GPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewNote: 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.
FirePro C5900 is a server Graphics Card based on the 40nm Terascale 2 architecture.
It's based on the Cayman Core (related to Radeon HD 6950) and therefore offers 512 Shader Processing Units, 32 TMUs and 32 ROPs on a 256-bit interface of fast GDDR5. The central unit is clocked 600MHz while the memory clock operates at 1000MHZ.
Despite featuring a Cayman Core, its LE variant features over 100% less Shader Processing Units and thus its performance lies between Radeon HD 6670 and Radeon HD 6750.
Recommended CPU
Possible GPU Upgrades
GPU Variants