GeForce GT 240 vs HD Graphics 630
Aggregated performance score
HD Graphics 630 outperforms GeForce GT 240 by 134% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 717 | 984 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.09 | 0.01 |
| Architecture | Gen. 9.5 Kaby Lake (2015−2017) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | Kaby-Lake-H-GT2 | GT215 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $80 |
| Current price | $370 | $708 (8.9x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
HD Graphics 630 has 800% better value for money than GT 240.
Technical specs
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 | 24 | 96 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 26.40 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 441.6 gflops | 257.28 gflops |
Size and 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 3.0 x1 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 6.6" (168mm) (16.8 cm) |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | IGP | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
Memory
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 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 54.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | no data |
Video outputs and ports
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 | DVIVGAHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 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.
HD Graphics 630 outperforms GeForce GT 240 by 134% based on our aggregated 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%
HD Graphics 630 outperforms GeForce GT 240 by 135% 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%
HD Graphics 630 outperforms GeForce GT 240 by 47% 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 | 15
−66.7%
| 25
+66.7%
|
| 1440p | 64
+137%
| 27−30
−137%
|
| 4K | 13
+160%
| 5−6
−160%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
This is how HD Graphics 630 and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- GT 240 is 66.7% faster than HD Graphics 630 in 1080p
- HD Graphics 630 is 137% faster than GT 240 in 1440p
- HD Graphics 630 is 160% faster than GT 240 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD Graphics 630 is 700% faster than the GT 240.
- in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 240 is 40% faster than the HD Graphics 630.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD Graphics 630 is ahead in 28 tests (88%)
- GT 240 is ahead in 1 test (3%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (9%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 3.09 | 1.32 |
| Recency | 1 January 2017 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 69 Watt |
The HD Graphics 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
