Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 vs AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Combined performance score
Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms GeForce GT 240 by 131% in our combined benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 722 | 985 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Value for money | no data | 0.01 |
Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
GPU code name | Kaveri Spectre | GT215 |
Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
Release date | 14 January 2014 (10 years old) | 17 November 2009 (14 years old) |
Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $80 |
Current price | no data | $708 (8.9x MSRP) |
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 | 512 | 96 |
CUDA cores | no data | 96 |
Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 550 MHz |
Number of transistors | no data | 727 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 69 Watt |
Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
Texture fill rate | no data | 17.60 |
Floating-point performance | no data | 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 | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | no data | 6.6" (168mm) (16.8 cm) |
Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
Width | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB or 1 GB |
Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | no data | 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 data | DVIVGAHDMI |
Multi monitor support | no data | + |
HDMI | no data | + |
Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
OpenGL | no data | 3.2 |
OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
Vulkan | no data | N/A |
CUDA | no data | + |
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 | 18
−38.9%
| 25
+38.9%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
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%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
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 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
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 | 10
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
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 | 6
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
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
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
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 | 0−1 | 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 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+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 R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and GT 240 compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- GT 240 is 38.9% faster than R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 700% faster than the GT 240.
All in all, in popular games:
- R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is ahead in 30 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)
Advantages and disadvantages
Performance score | 3.05 | 1.32 |
Recency | 14 January 2014 | 17 November 2009 |
Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
The Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 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.