GeForce 9300M GS vs GT 240

Place in the ranking	1027	1353
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	no data
Power efficiency	1.32	1.39
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GT215	G98
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	17 November 2009 (15 years ago)	4 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$80	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	96	8
Core clock speed	550 MHz	550 MHz
Number of transistors	727 million	210 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	69 Watt	13 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105C C	no data
Texture fill rate	17.60	4.400
Floating-point processing power	0.2573 TFLOPS	0.0224 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	34
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	32	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).

Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-I
Length	168 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	1-slot	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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB or 1 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz	700 MHz
Memory bandwidth	54.4 GB/s	11.2 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	DVIVGAHDMI	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	4.1	4.0
OpenGL	3.2	3.3
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
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. 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.

GT 240 1.31
+404%

9300M GS 0.26

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

GT 240 506
+406%

9300M GS 100

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.

GT 240 5221
+1855%

9300M GS 267

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

25
+525%

4−5

−525%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

3.20

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5
+100%

2−3

−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	2−3	0−1
Hitman 3	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +17.9%	27−30 −17.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	2−3	0−1
Hitman 3	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +17.9%	27−30 −17.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	2−3	0−1
Hitman 3	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +17.9%	27−30 −17.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+100%

2−3

−100%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

This is how GT 240 and 9300M GS compete in popular games:

GT 240 is 525% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 240 is 150% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 240 is ahead in 28 tests (97%)
there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.31	0.26
Recency	17 November 2009	4 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB or 1 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	69 Watt	13 Watt

GT 240 has a 403.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 204700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.

9300M GS, on the other hand, has 430.8% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 240 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9300M GS in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 240 is a desktop card while GeForce 9300M GS is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.