GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile vs GT 240

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 240 with GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

GT 240
2009
512 MB or 1 GB GDDR5, 69 Watt
1.29

RTX 2050 Mobile outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 1333% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1041305
Place by popularitynot in top-10029
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency1.3128.66
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGT215GA107
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date17 November 2009 (15 years ago)17 December 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$80 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores962048
Core clock speed550 MHz1185 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1477 MHz
Number of transistors727 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)69 Watt45 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105C Cno data
Texture fill rate17.6094.53
Floating-point processing power0.2573 TFLOPS6.05 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs3264
Tensor Coresno data256
Ray Tracing Coresno data32

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length168 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB or 1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth54.4 GB/s112.0 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 ConnectorsDVIVGAHDMI1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC support-+
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

VR Readyno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.6
OpenGL3.24.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+8.6
DLSS-+

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.

GT 240 1.29
RTX 2050 Mobile 18.49
+1333%

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.

GT 240 5221
RTX 2050 Mobile 46821
+797%

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
−64%
41
+64%
1440p2−3
−1600%
34
+1600%
4K1−2
−2500%
26
+2500%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.20no data
1440p40.00no data
4K80.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
−1050%
45−50
+1050%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−350%
36
+350%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1467%
47
+1467%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
−1125%
49
+1125%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−7300%
70−75
+7300%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−275%
30
+275%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1300%
42
+1300%
Fortnite 3−4
−3067%
95−100
+3067%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−929%
70−75
+929%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−633%
65−70
+633%
Valorant 30−35
−309%
130−140
+309%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
−650%
30
+650%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−7300%
70−75
+7300%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−238%
27
+238%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
−686%
220−230
+686%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−867%
29
+867%
Dota 2 16−18
−594%
118
+594%
Fortnite 3−4
−3067%
95−100
+3067%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−929%
70−75
+929%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
−6700%
68
+6700%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1750%
35−40
+1750%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−633%
65−70
+633%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−867%
58
+867%
Valorant 30−35
−309%
130−140
+309%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−7300%
70−75
+7300%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−300%
30−35
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−733%
25
+733%
Dota 2 16−18
−547%
110
+547%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−929%
70−75
+929%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−633%
65−70
+633%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−450%
33
+450%
Valorant 30−35
−309%
130−140
+309%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
−3067%
95−100
+3067%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 7−8
−1729%
120−130
+1729%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−1988%
160−170
+1988%
Valorant 4−5
−4150%
170−180
+4150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1500%
16−18
+1500%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−3600%
37
+3600%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−1367%
40−45
+1367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−1300%
27−30
+1300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−113%
30−35
+113%
Valorant 7−8
−1300%
95−100
+1300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 7−8
Dota 2 1−2
−3300%
34
+3300%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−800%
18
+800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−750%
16−18
+750%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Far Cry 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 49
+0%
49
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Far Cry 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 49
+0%
49
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 33
+0%
33
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 37
+0%
37
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how GT 240 and RTX 2050 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 2050 Mobile is 64% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 2050 Mobile is 1600% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 2050 Mobile is 2500% faster in 4K

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

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 2050 Mobile is 7300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RTX 2050 Mobile is ahead in 48 tests (73%)
  • there's a draw in 18 tests (27%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.29 18.49
Recency 17 November 2009 17 December 2021
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB or 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 69 Watt 45 Watt

GT 240 has a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RTX 2050 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 1333.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 400% more advanced lithography process, and 53.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile 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 RTX 2050 Mobile is a notebook one.

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 RTX 2050 Mobile
GeForce RTX 2050

Other comparisons

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.


3.4 939 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 2434 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 240 or GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.