
GRID P40-6Q vs Radeon R7 240

GRID P40-6Q
Popular choices:

Radeon R7 240
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GRID P40-6Q is positioned at rank 396 and the Radeon R7 240 is on rank 103, so the Radeon R7 240 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GRID P40-6Q
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R7 240
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GRID P40-6Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.3% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon R7 240 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GRID P40-6Q | Radeon R7 240 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R7 240 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R7 240 holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $150), it costs 90% less, resulting in a 896.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GRID P40-6Q | Radeon R7 240 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+896.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) | ✅More affordable ($15) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GRID P40-6Q and Radeon R7 240

GRID P40-6Q
The GRID P40-6Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 28 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 745 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 905 points. Launch price was $469.

Radeon R7 240
The Radeon R7 240 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 8 2013. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 780 MHz. It has 320 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 902 points. Launch price was $69.
Graphics Performance
The GRID P40-6Q scores 905 and the Radeon R7 240 reaches 902 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID P40-6Q is built on Kepler while the Radeon R7 240 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,536 (GRID P40-6Q) vs 320 (Radeon R7 240). Raw compute: 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID P40-6Q) vs 0.448 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 240).
| Feature | GRID P40-6Q | Radeon R7 240 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 905 | 902 |
| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1536+380% | 320 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.289 TFLOPS+411% | 0.448 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+300% | 8 |
| TMUs | 128+540% | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB+60% | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID P40-6Q | Radeon R7 240 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GRID P40-6Q comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon R7 240 has 2 GB. The Radeon R7 240 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (GRID P40-6Q) vs 256 KB (Radeon R7 240) — the GRID P40-6Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID P40-6Q | Radeon R7 240 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 2 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID P40-6Q draws 225W versus the Radeon R7 240's 30W — a 152.9% difference. The Radeon R7 240 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID P40-6Q) vs 300W (Radeon R7 240). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None.
| Feature | GRID P40-6Q | Radeon R7 240 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 30W-87% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 1mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 4.0 | 30.1+653% |
Value Analysis
The GRID P40-6Q launched at $3000 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the Radeon R7 240 launched at $69 and now averages $15. The Radeon R7 240 costs 90% less ($135 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 6.0 (GRID P40-6Q) vs 60.1 (Radeon R7 240) — the Radeon R7 240 offers 901.7% better value.
| Feature | GRID P40-6Q | Radeon R7 240 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $3000 | $69-98% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $15-90% |
| Performance per Dollar | 6.0 | 60.1+902% |
| Codename | GK104 | Oland |
| Release | June 28 2013 | October 8 2013 |
| Ranking | #628 | #911 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















