Quadro FX 2700M vs GeForce GT 240

Place in performance ranking	988	1079
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	0.02
Architecture	GT2xx (2009−2012)	G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code name	GT215	NB9E-GLM2
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	17 November 2009 (14 years ago)	14 August 2008 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$80	$99.95
Current price	$708 (8.9x MSRP)	$296 (3x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FX 2700M has 100% 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	48
CUDA cores	96	no data
Core clock speed	550 MHz	530 MHz
Number of transistors	727 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	69 Watt	65 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105C C	no data
Texture fill rate	17.60	12.72
Floating-point performance	257.28 gflops	127.2 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GT 240 and Quadro FX 2700M 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.

Laptop size	no data	large
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-HE
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	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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB or 1 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	54.4 GB/s	51.14 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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	4.1	4.0
OpenGL	3.2	3.3
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	+	1.1

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
+37.5%

FX 2700M 0.96

GeForce GT 240 outperforms Quadro FX 2700M by 38% 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 240 509
+37.6%

FX 2700M 370

GeForce GT 240 outperforms Quadro FX 2700M by 38% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GT 240 5221
+86.5%

FX 2700M 2799

GeForce GT 240 outperforms Quadro FX 2700M by 87% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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
+38.9%

18−20

−38.9%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2	0−1
Metro Exodus	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

This is how GT 240 and FX 2700M compete in popular games:

GT 240 is 38.9% faster than FX 2700M in 1080p

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

in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 240 is 100% faster than the FX 2700M.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 240 is ahead in 14 tests (52%)
there's a draw in 13 tests (48%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.32	0.96
Recency	17 November 2009	14 August 2008
Cost	$80	$99.95
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB or 1 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	69 Watt	65 Watt