GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon R9 FURY X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 FURY X and GeForce GT 240, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 FURY X outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 1895% 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 | 294 | 1143 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.75 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 6.34 | 1.27 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | GT215 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 24 June 2015 (11 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $80 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 FURY X has 57400% 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 | 4096 | 96 |
| Compute units | 64 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 268.8 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.602 TFLOPS | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 256 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 195 mm | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR5 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1050 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | 54.4 GB/s |
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 | 1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | DVIVGAHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
| 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.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| 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 | 450−500
+1700%
| 25 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 1.44
+54.9%
| 3.20 |
- R9 FURY X has 55% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6 | 5−6 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 3−4 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 7−8 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 9−10 |
| Valorant | 30−35 | 30−35 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 3−4 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 7−8 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 9−10 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 7−8 |
| Valorant | 30−35 | 30−35 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 7−8 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 9−10 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 7−8 |
| Valorant | 30−35 | 30−35 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 3−4 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 3−4 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8 | 7−8 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Valorant | 7−8 | 7−8 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 3−4 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 2−3 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 1−2 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| Valorant | 7−8 | 7−8 |
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 2−3 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 2−3 |
This is how R9 FURY X and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- R9 FURY X is 1700% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 40 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.34 | 1.12 |
| Recency | 24 June 2015 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 69 Watt |
R9 FURY X has a 1895% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 30% more advanced lithography process.
GT 240, on the other hand, has a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 75% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 FURY X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 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.
