Quadro T2000 Max-Q vs GeForce GT 240M

Place in the ranking	1307	362
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.72	32.49
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GT216	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	15 June 2009 (17 years ago)	27 May 2019 (7 years ago)

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	1024
Core clock speed	550 MHz	1200 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1620 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	40 Watt
Texture fill rate	8.800	103.7
Floating-point processing power	0.1162 TFLOPS	3.318 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	174	no data
ROPs	8	32
TMUs	16	64
L1 Cache	no data	1 MB
L2 Cache	64 KB	1024 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	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	128.0 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	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

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 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.5
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	7.5

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.

GT 240M 0.51

T2000 Max-Q 16.81
+3196%

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.

GT 240M 211
Samples: 383

T2000 Max-Q 7002
+3218%

Samples: 798

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.

GT 240M 2372

T2000 Max-Q 39269
+1556%

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	12 −375%	57 +375%
1440p	0−1	26
4K	1−2 −3700%	38 +3700%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −3500%	35−40 +3500%
Palworld	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −3500%	35−40 +3500%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −1650%	70−75 +1650%
Palworld	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −700%	60−65 +700%
Valorant	27−30 −393%	130−140 +393%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	16−18 −1171%	210−220 +1171%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −3500%	35−40 +3500%
Dota 2	10−12 −1027%	124 +1027%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −1650%	70−75 +1650%
Metro Exodus	0−1	33
Palworld	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −700%	60−65 +700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 −950%	63 +950%
Valorant	27−30 −393%	130−140 +393%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −3500%	35−40 +3500%
Dota 2	10−12 −927%	113 +927%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −1650%	70−75 +1650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −700%	60−65 +700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 −450%	33 +450%
Valorant	27−30 −393%	130−140 +393%

Full HD
Epic

Palworld

3−4

−1233%

40−45
+1233%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2	2−3 −1600%	30−35 +1600%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	2−3 −6150%	120−130 +6150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	5−6 −3020%	150−160 +3020%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −4100%	40−45 +4100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −2400%	24−27 +2400%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite	0−1	35−40
Palworld	1−2 −2200%	21−24 +2200%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −107%	30−35 +107%
Valorant	5−6 −1640%	85−90 +1640%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

1−2

−1600%

16−18
+1600%

4K
Epic

Fortnite

2−3

−750%

16−18
+750%

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Fortnite	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Fortnite	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite

90−95

+0%

90−95

+0%

1440p
High

Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Palworld	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Dota 2	46 +0%	46 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%

4K
Epic

Palworld

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

This is how GT 240M and T2000 Max-Q compete in popular games:

T2000 Max-Q is 375% faster in 1080p
T2000 Max-Q is 3700% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Max-Q is 6150% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

T2000 Max-Q performs better in 32 tests (51%)
there's a draw in 31 tests (49%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.51	16.81
Recency	15 June 2009	27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	40 Watt

GT 240M has 74% lower power consumption.

T2000 Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 3196% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T2000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 240M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro T2000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

5880 Ada Generation

320M Mac Edition

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3 117 votes

Rate GeForce GT 240M on a scale of 1 to 5:

3.6 110 votes

Rate Quadro T2000 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 240M or Quadro T2000 Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.