GeForce MX330 vs GT 240

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 240 with GeForce MX330, including specs and performance data.

GT 240
2009
512 MB or 1 GB GDDR5, 69 Watt
1.31

MX330 outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 381% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1025574
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency1.3143.55
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGT215GP108
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date17 November 2009 (14 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 cores96384
Core clock speed550 MHz1531 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1594 MHz
Number of transistors727 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)69 Watt10 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105C Cno data
Texture fill rate17.6038.26
Floating-point processing power0.2573 TFLOPS1.224 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs3224

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 supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount512 MB or 1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth54.4 GB/s48.06 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 ConnectorsDVIVGAHDMINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno 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.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.4
OpenGL3.24.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
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 6.30
+381%

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
GeForce MX330 2431
+380%

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 HD25
+13.6%
22
−13.6%
4K4−5
−475%
23
+475%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.20no data
4K20.00no 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 475% 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 6.30
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 380.9% 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 240
GeForce GT 240
NVIDIA GeForce MX330
GeForce MX330

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 880 votes

Rate GeForce GT 240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 2160 votes

Rate GeForce MX330 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.