GeForce MX330 vs GT 240

Place in the ranking	1031	577
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	no data
Power efficiency	1.30	43.08
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GT215	GP108
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	17 November 2009 (15 years ago)	10 February 2020 (4 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	384
Core clock speed	550 MHz	1531 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1594 MHz
Number of transistors	727 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	69 Watt	10 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105C C	no data
Texture fill rate	17.60	38.26
Floating-point processing power	0.2573 TFLOPS	1.224 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	32	24

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	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	168 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB or 1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	54.4 GB/s	48.06 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

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.4
OpenGL	3.2	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	6.1

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

GeForce MX330 6.29
+380%

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 240 504

GeForce MX330 2423
+381%

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 +13.6%	22 −13.6%
4K	4−5 −500%	24 +500%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.20	no data
4K	20.00	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−150%

10−11
+150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −217%	19 +217%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −175%	11 +175%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −2000%	21 +2000%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −800%	27 +800%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −1950%	40−45 +1950%
Hitman 3	6−7 −167%	16 +167%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −743%	118 +743%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −1200%	26 +1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −175%	21−24 +175%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −142%	80 +142%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −267%	22 +267%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −150%	10 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −1700%	18 +1700%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −533%	19 +533%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −1950%	40−45 +1950%
Hitman 3	6−7 −150%	15 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −657%	106 +657%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −900%	20 +900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −175%	21−24 +175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −81.8%	20−22 +81.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −127%	75 +127%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −16.7%	7 +16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −1100%	12 +1100%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −700%	16 +700%
Hitman 3	6−7 −117%	13 +117%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −14.3%	16 +14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −175%	21−24 +175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −9.1%	12 +9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −54.5%	50−55 +54.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−350%

9
+350%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	6−7
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Hitman 3	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −180%	14−16 +180%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 −567%	40−45 +567%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−175%

10−12
+175%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

4−5

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	3−4
Far Cry 5	0−1	3−4

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−133%

7−8
+133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9 +0%	9 +0%
Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Metro Exodus	27 +0%	27 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8 +0%	8 +0%
Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Metro Exodus	21 +0%	21 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Hitman 3	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

This is how GT 240 and GeForce MX330 compete in popular games:

GT 240 is 14% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX330 is 500% faster in 4K

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

in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 2000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX330 is ahead in 47 tests (70%)
there's a draw in 20 tests (30%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.31	6.29
Recency	17 November 2009	10 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB or 1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	69 Watt	10 Watt

GT 240 has a 25500% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce MX330, on the other hand, has a 380.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 590% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX330 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 240 is a desktop card while GeForce MX330 is a notebook one.

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