Radeon 740M vs GeForce GT 240
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 240 with Radeon 740M, including specs and performance data.
Radeon 740M outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 573% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 990 | 459 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Architecture | GT2xx (2009−2012) | RDNA 3 |
| GPU code name | GT215 | Phoenix |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 17 November 2009 (14 years ago) | 23 May 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | no data |
| Current price | $708 (8.9x MSRP) | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 30 Watt (30 - 15 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 17.60 | 40.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 257.28 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 240 and Radeon 740M 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.
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 168 mm | 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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1700 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.4 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.2 | no data |
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.
Radeon 740M outperforms GeForce GT 240 by 573% based on our aggregate 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%
Radeon 740M outperforms GeForce GT 240 by 573% 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 | 25
−540%
| 160−170
+540%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−280%
|
18−20
+280%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2050%
|
40−45
+2050%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
−290%
|
35−40
+290%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−175%
|
30−35
+175%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−280%
|
18−20
+280%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2050%
|
40−45
+2050%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
−290%
|
35−40
+290%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−175%
|
30−35
+175%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−280%
|
18−20
+280%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2050%
|
40−45
+2050%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
−290%
|
35−40
+290%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−175%
|
30−35
+175%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
−200%
|
14−16
+200%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−280%
|
18−20
+280%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GT 240 and Radeon 740M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 740M is 540% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 740M is 2050% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 740M is ahead in 47 tests (68%)
- there's a draw in 22 tests (32%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.32 | 8.89 |
| Recency | 17 November 2009 | 23 May 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 30 Watt |
Radeon 740M has a 573.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 900% more advanced lithography process, and 130% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 740M 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 Radeon 740M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
