GeForce GT 240 vs Quadro P5200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P5200 with GeForce GT 240, including specs and performance data.
P5200 outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 2260% 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 | 242 | 1133 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 20.81 | 1.28 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GT215 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 21 February 2018 (8 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $80 |
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 | 2560 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1556 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1746 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 279.4 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.94 TFLOPS | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 160 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 230.4 GB/s | 54.4 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 | No outputs | DVIVGAHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | + |
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 | 120
+380%
| 25
−380%
|
| 4K | 48
+2300%
| 2−3
−2300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.20 |
| 4K | no data | 40.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+2467%
|
6−7
−2467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+2900%
|
2−3
−2900%
|
| Palworld | 65−70
+1625%
|
4−5
−1625%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 65−70
+3250%
|
2−3
−3250%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+10400%
|
1−2
−10400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+2467%
|
6−7
−2467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+2900%
|
2−3
−2900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+4350%
|
2−3
−4350%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+4233%
|
3−4
−4233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+1429%
|
7−8
−1429%
|
| Palworld | 65−70
+1625%
|
4−5
−1625%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+1111%
|
9−10
−1111%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+463%
|
30−35
−463%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+10400%
|
1−2
−10400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+2467%
|
6−7
−2467%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+896%
|
27−30
−896%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+2900%
|
2−3
−2900%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+706%
|
16−18
−706%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+4350%
|
2−3
−4350%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+4233%
|
3−4
−4233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+1429%
|
7−8
−1429%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 95−100
+2350%
|
4−5
−2350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
| Palworld | 65−70
+1625%
|
4−5
−1625%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+1111%
|
9−10
−1111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 118
+1586%
|
7−8
−1586%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+463%
|
30−35
−463%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+10400%
|
1−2
−10400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+2900%
|
2−3
−2900%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+706%
|
16−18
−706%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+4350%
|
2−3
−4350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+1429%
|
7−8
−1429%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+1111%
|
9−10
−1111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65
+829%
|
7−8
−829%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+463%
|
30−35
−463%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140
+4233%
|
3−4
−4233%
|
| Palworld | 65−70
+1625%
|
4−5
−1625%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+1933%
|
3−4
−1933%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+2657%
|
7−8
−2657%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1358%
|
12−14
−1358%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+6900%
|
3−4
−6900%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+2400%
|
3−4
−2400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+2300%
|
3−4
−2300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+3250%
|
2−3
−3250%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+253%
|
14−16
−253%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Palworld | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+2157%
|
7−8
−2157%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Palworld | 21−24 | 0−1 |
This is how Quadro P5200 and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P5200 is 380% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P5200 is 2300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro P5200 is 10400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P5200 surpassed GT 240 in all 44 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 26.90 | 1.14 |
| Recency | 21 February 2018 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 69 Watt |
Quadro P5200 has a 2260% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
GT 240, on the other hand, has a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 45% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P5200 is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 240 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
