0
Check Prices $69.00
0
Check Prices $80.00
Select any two GPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Radeon R7 240 2GB GeForce GT 240
Cyberpunk 2077 786% 769%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 711% 695%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 684% 669%
Hitman 3 1053% 1031%
Grand Theft Auto VI 1147% 1123%
FIFA 21 347% 338%
Far Cry 6 1182% 1158%
Genshin Impact 786% 769%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 1171% 1146%
Watch Dogs Legion 755% 738%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the Nvidia GeForce GT 240 are marginally better than the AMD Radeon R7 240 2GB.

The R7 240 has a 180 MHz higher core clock speed than the GeForce GT 240, but the GeForce GT 240 has 12 more Texture Mapping Units than the R7 240. As a result, the GeForce GT 240 exhibits a 3 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 180 MHz higher core clock speed than the GeForce GT 240 and the same number of Render Output Units. This results in the R7 240 providing 1.4 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 over three years more recently than the GeForce GT 240, and so the R7 240 is likely to have far better driver support, meaning it will be much more optimized and ultimately superior to the GeForce GT 240 when running the latest games.

The R7 240 has 1024 MB more video memory than the GeForce GT 240, so is likely to be much better at displaying game textures at higher resolutions. However, the overall memory performance is about the same.

The GeForce GT 240 has 25.6 GB/sec greater memory bandwidth than the R7 240, which means that the memory performance of the GeForce GT 240 is slightly better than the R7 240.

The Radeon R7 240 2GB has 320 Shader Processing Units and the GeForce GT 240 has 96. However, the actual shader performance of the R7 240 is 212 and the actual shader performance of the GeForce GT 240 is 106. The R7 240 having 106 better shader performance is not particularly notable, as altogether the GeForce GT 240 performs better when taking into account other relevant data.

The R7 240 transistor size technology is 12 nm (nanometers) smaller than the GeForce GT 240. This means that the R7 240 is expected to run slightly cooler and achieve higher clock frequencies than the GeForce GT 240. While they exhibit similar graphical performance, the R7 240 should consume less power than the GeForce GT 240.

The Radeon R7 240 2GB requires 30 Watts to run and the GeForce GT 240 requires 69 Watts. We would recommend a PSU with at least 400 Watts for the R7 240 and a PSU with at least 300 Watts for the GeForce GT 240. The GeForce GT 240 requires 39 Watts more than the R7 240 to run. The difference is significant enough that the GeForce GT 240 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 MHzvs550 MHz
Boost Clock780 MHzvs-
ArchitectureGCN 1.1 Oland PROTesla GT215-450-A2
OC Potential Good vs Fair
Driver Support Great vs Poor
Release Date08 Oct 2013vs01 Nov 2009
GPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved
Comparison

Resolution Performance

1366x768
6.4
green tick vs -
1600x900
4.9
green tick vs
4.8
1920x1080
3.1
vs green tick
3.2
2560x1440
2.3
green tick vs
2.2
3840x2160
1.5
green tick vs -

GPU Memory

Memory2048 MBvs1024 MB
Memory Speed900 MHzvs850 MHz
Memory Bus128 Bitvs128 Bit
Memory TypeDDR3vsGDDR5
Memory Bandwidth28.8GB/secvs54.4GB/sec
L2 Cache 512 KB green tick vs 0 KB
Delta Color Compression no vs no
Memory Performance 0% green tick vs green tick 0%
Comparison

GPU Display

Shader Processing Units320vs96
Actual Shader Performance10%vs5%
Technology28nmvs40nm
Texture Mapping Units20vs32
Texture Rate14.6 GTexel/svs17.6 GTexel/s
Render Output Units8vs8
Pixel Rate5.8 GPixel/svs4.4 GPixel/s
Comparison

GPU Outputs

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

GPU Power Requirements

Max Power30 Wattsvs69 Watts
Recommended PSU400 Watts & 18 Ampsvs300 Watts & 22 Amps

GPU Features

DirectX12.0vs10.1
Shader Model5.0vs4.0
Open GL4.4vs3.3
Open CL-vs-
Notebook GPUnono
SLI/Crossfirenovsno
Dedicatedyesvsyes
Comparison

GPU Supporting Hardware

Recommended ProcessorIntel Core i3-4130 3.4GHzvsIntel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz
Recommended RAM4 GBvs4 GB
Maximum Recommended Gaming Resolution1366x768vs1366x768

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.
Overview
GeForce GT 240 is a Middle-Class Graphics Card based on the Second Revision of the Tesla Architecture.

Architecture
Tesla was NVIDIA's First Unified Shader Architecture.

GPU
It equips a GPU Codenamed GT215-450-A2 which has 8 Stream Multiprocessors activated and thus offers 96 Shader Processing Units, 32 TMUs and 8 ROPs. The Central Unit is clocked at 550MHz.

Memory
The GPU accesses a 1GB frame buffer of fast GDDR5, through a 128-bit memory interface. The size of the frame buffer is adequate. The Memory Clock Operates at 850MHz.

Features
DirectX 10.1 Support (10.0 Hardware Default) and support for NVIDIA PureVideo HD Technology, Dual-stream Hardware Acceleration, PhysX, CUDA, HybridPower and other technologies.

Cooling Solution
The Cooling Solution consists of a Single-Fan.

Power Consumption
With a rated board TDP of 69W, it relies entirely on the PCI Slot for Power meaning no extra connectors are required.

Performance
Gaming benchmarks put its performance somewhat above a Radeon HD 4670, meaning it is much faster than the more recent Fermi GeForce GT 430.
Recommended CPU
Possible GPU Upgrades
-
GPU Variants
-