GeForce GT 720M vs GT 240

Place in performance ranking	988	1017
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	0.03
Architecture	GT2xx (2009−2012)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GT215	N14M-GE
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	17 November 2009 (14 years ago)	1 April 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$80	no data
Current price	$708 (8.9x MSRP)	$499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 720M has 200% better value for money than GT 240.

Detailed specifications

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	no data
Core clock speed	550 MHz	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	938 MHz
Number of transistors	727 million	915 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	12.13
Floating-point performance	257.28 gflops	240.0 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GT 240 and GeForce GT 720M 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	PCIe 2.0 x8
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

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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB or 1 GB	2 GB
Standard memory configuration	no data	DDR3
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz	1800 - 2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	54.4 GB/s	12.8 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

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
eDP 1.2 signal support	no data	Up to 2560x1600
LVDS signal support	no data	Up to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display support	no data	Up to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	no data	Up to 2560x1600
HDMI	+	+
HDCP content protection	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI	no data	+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming	no data	+

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support	no data	+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 API
Shader Model	4.1	5.1
OpenGL	3.2	4.5
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.126
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
+10.9%

GT 720M 1.19

GT 240 outperforms GT 720M by 11% 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 240 509
+10.2%

GT 720M 462

GT 240 outperforms GT 720M by 10% 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
+13.9%

GT 720M 4585

GT 240 outperforms GT 720M by 14% 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

25
+78.6%

−78.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +75%	4 −75%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −25%	5 +25%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
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%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
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 +100%	1−2 −100%
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 720M compete in popular games:

GT 240 is 78.6% faster than GT 720M in 1080p

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

in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GT 240 is 100% faster than the GT 720M.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 720M is 25% faster than the GT 240.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 240 is ahead in 8 tests (28%)
GT 720M is ahead in 1 test (3%)
there's a draw in 20 tests (69%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.32	1.19
Recency	17 November 2009	1 April 2013
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB or 1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	69 Watt	33 Watt