GeForce GT 630M vs GT 240

Place in performance ranking	984	956
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Value for money	0.01	0.02
Architecture	GT2xx (2009−2012)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GT215	N13P-GL/GL2
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	17 November 2009 (14 years ago)	6 December 2011 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$80	no data
Current price	$708 (8.9x MSRP)	$1121

Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 630M has 100% 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	96	96
CUDA cores	96	96
Core clock speed	550 MHz	Up to 800 MHz
Number of transistors	727 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	69 Watt	33 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105C C	no data
Texture fill rate	17.60	Up to 12.8 billion/sec
Floating-point performance	257.28 gflops	253.4 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on GeForce GT 240 and GeForce GT 630M 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
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	PCI Express 2.0
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	6.6" (168mm) (16.8 cm)	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	GDDR5	DDR3\GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB or 1 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	Up to 128bit
Memory clock speed	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz	1800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	54.4 GB/s	Up to 32.0 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	DVIVGAHDMI	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	Up to 2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Blu-Ray	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+

API support

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (11_0)
DirectX 11.2	no data	12 API
Shader Model	4.1	5.1
OpenGL	3.2	4.5
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	+	+

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.

GT 240 1.32

GT 630M 1.39
+5.3%

GT 630M outperforms GT 240 by 5% 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%

GT 240 510

GT 630M 540
+5.9%

GT 630M outperforms GT 240 by 6% 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%

GT 240 5221
+7.2%

GT 630M 4869

GT 240 outperforms GT 630M by 7% 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:

900p	18−20 −5.6%	19 +5.6%
Full HD	25 +56.3%	16 −56.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

This is how GT 240 and GT 630M compete in popular games:

GT 630M is 5.6% faster than GT 240 in 900p
GT 240 is 56.3% faster than GT 630M in 1080p

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

in Hitman 3, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 630M is 100% faster than the GT 240.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 630M is ahead in 4 tests (13%)
there's a draw in 28 tests (88%)

Advantages and disadvantages

Performance score	1.32	1.39
Recency	17 November 2009	6 December 2011
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB or 1 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	69 Watt	33 Watt