GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon PRO W7600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO W7600 with GeForce GT 240, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7600 outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 3359% 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 | 129 | 1133 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 38.86 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 23.46 | 1.28 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Navi 33 | GT215 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 August 2023 (3 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | $80 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
PRO W7600 has 388500% better value for money than GT 240.
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 | 2048 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2440 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 13,300 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 312.3 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 128 | 32 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 18 GB/s | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 54.4 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | DVIVGAHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 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.
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 | 850−900
+3300%
| 25
−3300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 0.70
+354%
| 3.20
−354%
|
- PRO W7600 has 354% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Palworld | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how PRO W7600 and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- PRO W7600 is 3300% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 44 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.43 | 1.14 |
| Recency | 3 August 2023 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 69 Watt |
PRO W7600 has a 3359% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 567% more advanced lithography process.
GT 240, on the other hand, has a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 88% lower power consumption.
The Radeon PRO W7600 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO W7600 is a 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.
