GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs GT 240
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 240 with GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 1819% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1041 | 223 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.31 | 28.94 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | GN20-P0-R 6 GB |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 17 November 2009 (15 years ago) | 6 January 2023 (2 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.
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 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 1237 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1492 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105C C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 17.60 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2573 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 32 | no data |
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 size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 168 mm | 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz | 12000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.4 GB/s | no data |
| 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 data |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12_2 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.2 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
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
−176%
| 69
+176%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−3600%
| 37
+3600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.20 | no data |
| 1440p | 80.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−571%
|
45−50
+571%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1925%
|
81
+1925%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−7600%
|
75−80
+7600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−571%
|
45−50
+571%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−700%
|
32
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1400%
|
105
+1400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−686%
|
55−60
+686%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−7600%
|
75−80
+7600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−471%
|
40
+471%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−475%
|
23
+475%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−6000%
|
61
+6000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−782%
|
97
+782%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−2420%
|
120−130
+2420%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1129%
|
86
+1129%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−9000%
|
91
+9000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1029%
|
150−160
+1029%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−686%
|
55−60
+686%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1071%
|
80−85
+1071%
|
| World of Tanks | 27−30
−821%
|
250−260
+821%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−7600%
|
75−80
+7600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−571%
|
45−50
+571%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−375%
|
19
+375%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−8600%
|
85−90
+8600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−600%
|
75−80
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−986%
|
76
+986%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1029%
|
150−160
+1029%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2088%
|
170−180
+2088%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 21−24 |
| World of Tanks | 7−8
−2286%
|
160−170
+2286%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1380%
|
70−75
+1380%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−825%
|
37
+825%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−1033%
|
65−70
+1033%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−175%
|
40−45
+175%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−193%
|
40−45
+193%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−2467%
|
75−80
+2467%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−193%
|
40−45
+193%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2500%
|
24−27
+2500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−175%
|
40−45
+175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3200%
|
30−35
+3200%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−3200%
|
30−35
+3200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how GT 240 and RTX 3050 6GB Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 176% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 3600% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 9000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is ahead in 42 tests (68%)
- there's a draw in 20 tests (32%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.26 | 24.18 |
| Recency | 17 November 2009 | 6 January 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 60 Watt |
GT 240 has a 8433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, on the other hand, has a 1819% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 400% more advanced lithography process, and 15% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB 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 3050 6GB Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
