Radeon HD 8240 vs GeForce 9800M GTX SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9800M GTX SLI with Radeon HD 8240, including specs and performance data.
9800M GTX SLI outperforms HD 8240 by a whopping 383% 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 | 807 | 1243 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.45 | 3.00 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | NB9E-GTX | Kalindi |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 July 2008 (17 years ago) | 1 November 2013 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 224 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3016 Million | 1,178 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 3.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.1024 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
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 |
| Interface | no data | IGP |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| 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 data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| God of War | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| God of War | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+64.3%
|
27−30
−64.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+206%
|
18−20
−206%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+133%
|
12−14
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| God of War | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+64.3%
|
27−30
−64.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+133%
|
12−14
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| God of War | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+64.3%
|
27−30
−64.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| God of War | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the 9800M GTX SLI is 950% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, 9800M GTX SLI surpassed HD 8240 in all 32 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.85 | 0.59 |
| Recency | 15 July 2008 | 1 November 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 15 Watt |
9800M GTX SLI has a 383.1% higher aggregate performance score.
HD 8240, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.
The GeForce 9800M GTX SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8240 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 9800M GTX SLI is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 8240 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.
