GeForce MX330 vs GT 240

Place in performance ranking	988	544
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	3.34
Architecture	GT2xx (2009−2012)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GT215	N17S-LP / N17S-G3
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	17 November 2009 (14 years ago)	20 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$80	no data
Current price	$708 (8.9x MSRP)	$1079

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GeForce MX330 has 33300% 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	384
CUDA cores	96	no data
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	25 Watt (12 - 25 Watt TGP)
Maximum GPU temperature	105C C	no data
Texture fill rate	17.60	38.26
Floating-point performance	257.28 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GT 240 and GeForce MX330 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.

Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
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	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	7000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	54.4 GB/s	48.06 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
HDMI	+	no data
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

no data

API compatibility

List of supported graphics 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 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

GeForce MX330 6.33
+380%

MX330 outperforms GT 240 by 380% 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

GeForce MX330 2446
+380%

MX330 outperforms GT 240 by 380% in Passmark.

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	4−5 −450%	22 +450%
4K	4−5 −475%	23 +475%

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	0−1	19
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −267%	11 +267%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −250%	21 +250%
Far Cry New Dawn	0−1	27
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −520%	31 +520%
Hitman 3	4−5 −375%	19 +375%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −200%	39 +200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −1200%	26 +1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −90%	18−20 +90%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	14
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −400%	15 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −633%	44 +633%
Far Cry New Dawn	0−1	17
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −340%	22 +340%
Hitman 3	4−5 −200%	12 +200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −115%	28 +115%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −950%	21 +950%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +100%	5 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −375%	19 +375%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	7
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −33.3%	4 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −100%	12 +100%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −220%	16 +220%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −23.1%	16 +23.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −200%	12 +200%

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	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −1000%	10−12 +1000%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −180%	14−16 +180%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5	6−7 −250%	21 +250%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	3−4
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	2−3
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−133%

7−8
+133%

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

GeForce MX330 is 450% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX330 is 475% faster in 4K

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

in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 240 is 100% faster than the GeForce MX330.
in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX330 is 1200% faster than the GT 240.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 240 is ahead in 1 test (3%)
GeForce MX330 is ahead in 37 tests (97%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.32	6.33
Recency	17 November 2009	20 February 2020
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB or 1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	69 Watt	25 Watt