GeForce GT 640M LE vs GT 240M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 240M and GeForce GT 640M LE, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
640M LE outperforms 240M by a whopping 225% 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 | 1311 | 1007 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 1.72 | 4.02 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 June 2009 (17 years ago) | 4 May 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $849.99 |
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 | 48 | Up to 384 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | Up to 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 20 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.800 | 12.05 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1162 TFLOPS | 0.289 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 174 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 256 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 | medium sized | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR3 | DDR3\DDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | 785 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | Up to 28.8 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 | Single Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMIVGA | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | Up to 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| Optimus | - | + |
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.5 |
| 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:
| 900p | 5−6
−280%
| 19
+280%
|
| Full HD | 12
−75%
| 21
+75%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 40.48 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−31%
|
35−40
+31%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−112%
|
35−40
+112%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−72.7%
|
18−20
+72.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−31%
|
35−40
+31%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−72.7%
|
18−20
+72.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−31%
|
35−40
+31%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−240%
|
16−18
+240%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 3−4 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Valorant | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GT 240M and GT 640M LE compete in popular games:
- GT 640M LE is 280% faster in 900p
- GT 640M LE is 75% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 640M LE is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 640M LE performs better in 28 tests (56%)
- there's a draw in 22 tests (44%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.51 | 1.66 |
| Recency | 15 June 2009 | 4 May 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 20 Watt |
GT 640M LE has a 225% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 15% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 640M LE is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
