Recommended System Requirements | ||
---|---|---|
Game | Radeon R7 240 Sapphire 4GB Edition | Radeon R7 240 2GB |
Hitman 3 | 1053% | 1053% |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 786% | 786% |
Assassins Creed: Valhalla | 711% | 711% |
Resident Evil 8 | 786% | 786% |
FIFA 21 | 347% | 347% |
Grand Theft Auto VI | 1147% | 1147% |
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War | 684% | 684% |
Genshin Impact | 786% | 786% |
Far Cry 6 | 1182% | 1182% |
The Medium | 1006% | 1006% |
In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the R7 240 and the R7 240 are equal.
The R7 240 and the R7 240 have both the same core clock speed and the same Texture Fill Rate. 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 and the R7 240 have both the same core clock speed and the same Pixel Fill Rate. However, both GPUs support DirectX 9 or above, and pixeling performance is only really relevant when comparing older cards.
Both the Radeon R7 240 Sapphire 4GB Edition and the Radeon R7 240 2GB were released at the same time, so are likely to be quite similar.
The R7 240 has 1024 MB more video memory than the R7 240, so is likely to be much better at displaying game textures at higher resolutions. This is supported by the fact that the R7 240 also has superior memory performance overall.
The memory bandwidth of the Radeon R7 240 Sapphire 4GB Edition and the Radeon R7 240 2GB are the same, which means the R7 240 and the R7 240 have equal limitations when it comes to graphical data transfer.
Both the Radeon R7 240 Sapphire 4GB Edition and the Radeon R7 240 2GB have 320 Shader Processing Units. Having the same number of SPUs and using the same architecture means that the performance they offer can be compared by looking at the memory bandwidth, Texture and Pixel Rates. In this case, the two GPUs have extremely similar stats, so any gaming performance difference would most likely be negligible.
The Radeon R7 240 Sapphire 4GB Edition requires 35 Watts to run and the Radeon R7 240 2GB requires 30 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 R7 240. The R7 240 requires 5 Watts more than the R7 240 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 R7 240.
Core Speed | 730 MHz | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 730 MHz |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boost Clock | 780 MHz | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 780 MHz |
Architecture | GCN 1.1 Oland PRO | GCN 1.1 Oland PRO | |||
OC Potential | Good |
![]() |
vs |
![]() | Good |
Driver Support | Great | vs | Great | ||
Release Date | 08 Oct 2013 | vs | 08 Oct 2013 | ||
GPU Link | GD Link | GD Link | |||
Approved | ![]() | ![]() | |||
Comparison |
1366x768 | 6.4
|
![]() |
vs | ![]() |
6.4
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1600x900 | 4.9
|
![]() |
vs | ![]() |
4.9
|
1920x1080 | 3.1
|
![]() |
vs | ![]() |
3.1
|
2560x1440 | 2.3
|
![]() |
vs | ![]() |
2.3
|
3840x2160 | 1.5
|
![]() |
vs | ![]() |
1.5
|
Memory | 1024 MB | vs | ![]() | 2048 MB | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Memory Speed | 900 MHz | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 900 MHz |
Memory Bus | 128 Bit | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 128 Bit |
Memory Type | DDR3 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | DDR3 |
Memory Bandwidth | 28.8GB/sec | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 28.8GB/sec |
L2 Cache | 512 KB | ![]() |
vs | ![]() |
512 KB |
Delta Color Compression | no | vs | no | ||
Memory Performance | 0% | ![]() |
vs | ![]() |
0% |
Comparison |
Shader Processing Units | 320 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 320 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Actual Shader Performance | 10% | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 10% |
Technology | 28nm | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 28nm |
Texture Mapping Units | 20 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 20 |
Texture Rate | 14.6 GTexel/s | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 14.6 GTexel/s |
Render Output Units | 8 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 8 |
Pixel Rate | 5.8 GPixel/s | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 5.8 GPixel/s |
Comparison |
Max Digital Resolution (WxH) | 4096x2160 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 4096x2160 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
VGA Connections | 1 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 1 |
DVI Connections | 1 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 1 |
HDMI Connections | 1 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 1 |
DisplayPort Connections | 0 | vs | - | ||
Comparison |
Max Power | 35 Watts | vs | ![]() | 30 Watts | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recommended PSU | 400 Watts & 27 Amps | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 400 Watts & 18 Amps |
DirectX | 12.0 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 12.0 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Shader Model | 5.0 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 5.0 |
Open GL | 4.4 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 4.4 |
Open CL | - | vs | - | ||
Notebook GPU | no | no | |||
SLI/Crossfire | no | vs | no | ||
Dedicated | yes | ![]() | vs | ![]() | yes |
Comparison |
Recommended Processor | Intel Core i3-4130 3.4GHz | vs | Intel Core i3-4130 3.4GHz | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recommended RAM | 4 GB | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 4 GB |
Maximum Recommended Gaming Resolution | 1366x768 | ![]() | vs | ![]() | 1366x768 |
Performance Value | ![]() |
---|
Mini Review | Overview Radeon R7 240 Sapphire 4GB Edition is a Special Edition of AMD's Performance Radeon R7 240, created by Sapphire. Overclock: Central Unit None. Overclock: Memory Clock None. Frame Buffer The Frame Buffer was Increased to 4GB. While 4GB are needed in a few Modern Games for increased texture detail, the GPU is not powerful enough to work under other circumstances in which 4GB are needed, such as gaming above 1080p and thus a larger frame buffer is mostly a gimmick. Cooling Solution Untouched. Performance Benchmarks Indicate no Performance Boost over the Reference Radeon R7 240. | 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. |
---|