GeForce GT 240M vs 8800 GTS 512
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8800 GTS 512 with GeForce GT 240M, including specs and performance data.
8800 GTS 512 outperforms GT 240M by a whopping 167% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 950 | 1185 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.03 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | G92 | N10P-GS |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 December 2007 (16 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $349 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 128 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 41.60 | 8.800 |
| Floating-point performance | 416.0 gflops | 116.16 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce 8800 GTS 512 and GeForce GT 240M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 254 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR3 | DDR3, GDDR2, GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1640 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 52.48 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 1.1 | + |
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.
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.
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 | 30−35
+150%
| 12
−150%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how 8800 GTS 512 and GT 240M compete in popular games:
- 8800 GTS 512 is 150% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 35 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.47 | 0.55 |
| Recency | 11 December 2007 | 15 June 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 23 Watt |
8800 GTS 512 has a 167.3% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 240M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 487% lower power consumption.
The GeForce 8800 GTS 512 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 8800 GTS 512 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 240M is a notebook 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.
