GeForce GT 240M vs FirePro M4000
Aggregate performance score
FirePro M4000 outperforms GeForce GT 240M by a whopping 655% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 650 | 1178 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.42 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde GLM | N10P-GS |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 July 2012 (11 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Current price | $433 | $129 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
FirePro M4000 and GT 240M have a nearly equal value for money.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 48 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 8.800 |
| Floating-point performance | 691.2 gflops | 116.16 gflops |
| Gigaflops | no data | 174 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on FirePro M4000 and GeForce GT 240M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | medium sized |
| Bus support | n/a | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Form factor | MXM-A | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | DDR3, GDDR2, GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4500 MHz | Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Single Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| StereoOutput3D | 1 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
FirePro M4000 outperforms GeForce GT 240M by 655% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
FirePro M4000 outperforms GeForce GT 240M by 653% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
FirePro M4000 outperforms GeForce GT 240M by 264% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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 | 32
+167%
| 12
−167%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how FirePro M4000 and GT 240M compete in popular games:
- FirePro M4000 is 167% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the FirePro M4000 is 1000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, FirePro M4000 surpassed GT 240M in all 33 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.15 | 0.55 |
| Recency | 1 July 2012 | 15 June 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 23 Watt |
The FirePro M4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M4000 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GT 240M is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
