Select any two GPUs for comparison

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game GeForce GT 230 v2 Radeon R7 240 2GB
Cyberpunk 2077 1122% 786%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 1017% 711%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 981% 684%
Grand Theft Auto VI 1619% 1147%
FIFA 21 516% 347%
Genshin Impact 1122% 786%
Far Cry 6 1668% 1182%
Hitman 3 1489% 1053%
Watch Dogs Legion 1078% 755%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 1651% 1171%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the AMD Radeon R7 240 2GB are significantly better than the Nvidia GeForce GT 230 v2.

The R7 240 has a 230 MHz higher core clock speed than the GT 230, but the GT 230 has 28 more Texture Mapping Units than the R7 240. As a result, the GT 230 exhibits a 9.4 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 230 MHz higher core clock speed than the GT 230, but the GT 230 has 4 more Render Output Units than the R7 240. As a result, the GT 230 exhibits a 0.2 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 three years more recently than the GT 230, 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 GT 230 when running the latest games.

The R7 240 has 512 MB more video memory than the GT 230, 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 R7 240 has 4.8 GB/sec greater memory bandwidth than the GT 230, which means that the memory performance of the R7 240 is marginally better than the GT 230.

The GeForce GT 230 v2 has 96 Shader Processing Units and the Radeon R7 240 2GB has 320. However, the actual shader performance of the GT 230 is 120 and the actual shader performance of the R7 240 is 212. The R7 240 having 92 better shader performance and an altogether better performance when taking into account other relevant data means that the R7 240 delivers a marginally smoother and more efficient experience when processing graphical data than the GT 230.

The R7 240 transistor size technology is 27 nm (nanometers) smaller than the GT 230. This means that the R7 240 is expected to run slightly cooler and achieve higher clock frequencies than the GT 230.

The GeForce GT 230 v2 requires 75 Watts to run and the Radeon R7 240 2GB requires 30 Watts. We would recommend a PSU with at least 300 Watts for the GT 230 and a PSU with at least 400 Watts for the R7 240. The GT 230 requires 45 Watts more than the R7 240 to run. The difference is significant enough that the GT 230 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 Speed500 MHzvs730 MHz
Boost Clock-vs780 MHz
ArchitectureTesla G92bGCN 1.1 Oland PRO
OC Potential Fair vs Good
Driver Support Poor vs Great
Release Date01 Oct 2009vs08 Oct 2013
GPU LinkGD LinkGD Link

Resolution Performance

1366x768 - vs green tick
vs green tick
vs green tick
vs green tick
3840x2160 - vs green tick

GPU Memory

Memory1536 MBvs2048 MB
Memory Speed500 MHzvs900 MHz
Memory Bus192 Bitvs128 Bit
Memory TypeDDR2vsDDR3
Memory Bandwidth24GB/secvs28.8GB/sec
L2 Cache 0 KB vs green tick 512 KB
Delta Color Compression no vs no
Memory Performance 0% green tick vs green tick 0%

GPU Display

Shader Processing Units96vs320
Actual Shader Performance6%vs10%
Texture Mapping Units48vs20
Texture Rate24 GTexel/svs14.6 GTexel/s
Render Output Units12vs8
Pixel Rate6 GPixel/svs5.8 GPixel/s

GPU Outputs

Max Digital Resolution (WxH)2560x1600vs4096x2160
VGA Connections1vs1
DVI Connections1vs1
HDMI Connections1vs1
DisplayPort Connections-vs-

GPU Power Requirements

Max Power75 Wattsvs30 Watts
Recommended PSU300 Watts & 22 Ampsvs400 Watts & 18 Amps

GPU Features

Shader Model4.0vs5.0
Open GL3.3vs4.4
Open CL-vs-
Notebook GPUnono

GPU Supporting Hardware

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

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

GPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewOverview
GeForce GT 230 v2 is a Middle-Class Graphics Card based on the First Revision of the Tesla Architecture.

Tesla was NVIDIA's First Unified Shader Architecture.

It equips a GPU Codenamed G92b which has 6 Stream Multiprocessors activated and thus offers 96 Shader Processing Units, 48 TMUs and 12 ROPs. The Central Unit is clocked at 500MHz.

The GPU accesses a 1.5GB frame buffer of DDR2, through a 192-bit memory interface. The size of the frame buffer is exaggerated and in no way benefits the GPU. The Memory Clock Operates at 500MHz.

DirectX 10.0 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 75W, it relies entirely on the PCI Slot for Power meaning no extra connectors are required.

Gaming benchmarks put its performance on level with a Radeon HD 5570, meaning it is slightly faster than the more recent Fermi GeForce GT 430.
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.
Recommended CPU
Possible GPU Upgrades
GPU Variants