GeForce GTS 160M vs GT 240
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 240 with GeForce GTS 160M, including specs and performance data.
GTS 160M outperforms GT 240 by a considerable 43% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1133 | 1007 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.28 | 2.10 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | G94 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 17 November 2009 (16 years ago) | 3 March 2009 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105C C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 17.60 | 19.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2573 TFLOPS | 0.192 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 288 |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 64 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| SLI options | - | 2-way |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz | Up to 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.4 GB/s | 51 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | DVIVGAHDMI | VGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.2 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 25
−40%
| 35−40
+40%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.20 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−12.5%
|
35−40
+12.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−29.6%
|
35−40
+29.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−12.5%
|
35−40
+12.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−12.5%
|
35−40
+12.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Palworld | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how GT 240 and GTS 160M compete in popular games:
- GTS 160M is 40% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTS 160M is 233% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTS 160M performs better in 37 tests (80%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (20%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.14 | 1.63 |
| Recency | 17 November 2009 | 3 March 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 60 Watt |
GT 240 has an age advantage of 8 months, a 51100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 63% more advanced lithography process.
GTS 160M, on the other hand, has a 43% higher aggregate performance score, and 15% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTS 160M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 240 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTS 160M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
