Radeon 780M vs GeForce GT 240

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 240 and Radeon 780M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 240
2009
512 MB or 1 GB GDDR5, 69 Watt
1.19

780M outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 1294% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1080345
Place by popularitynot in top-10047
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency1.3184.30
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025)
GPU code nameGT215Phoenix
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date17 November 2009 (15 years ago)31 January 2024 (1 year 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

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores96768
Core clock speed550 MHz800 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2900 MHz
Number of transistors727 million25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)69 Watt15 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105C Cno data
Texture fill rate17.60139.2
Floating-point processing power0.2573 TFLOPS8.909 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs3248
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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).

Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length168 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount512 MB or 1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth54.4 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsDVIVGAHDMIMotherboard Dependent
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno 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 Model4.16.8
OpenGL3.24.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-

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 1.19
Radeon 780M 16.59
+1294%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

GT 240 500
Radeon 780M 6953
+1291%

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
Radeon 780M 41636
+697%

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
−40%
35
+40%
1440p1−2
−2100%
22
+2100%
4K0−113

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.20no data
1440p80.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1850%
39
+1850%
God of War 5−6
−640%
37
+640%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−7100%
70−75
+7100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1450%
31
+1450%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−2150%
45
+2150%
Fortnite 3−4
−2967%
90−95
+2967%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−900%
70−75
+900%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 65
God of War 5−6
−500%
30
+500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−600%
60−65
+600%
Valorant 30−35
−316%
130−140
+316%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−7100%
70−75
+7100%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
−668%
210−220
+668%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1100%
24
+1100%
Dota 2 16−18
−531%
100−110
+531%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−1950%
41
+1950%
Fortnite 3−4
−2967%
90−95
+2967%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−900%
70−75
+900%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 60
God of War 5−6
−380%
24
+380%
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 44
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1350%
29
+1350%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−600%
60−65
+600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−557%
46
+557%
Valorant 30−35
−316%
130−140
+316%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−7100%
70−75
+7100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1050%
23
+1050%
Dota 2 16−18
−531%
100−110
+531%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−1850%
39
+1850%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−900%
70−75
+900%
God of War 5−6
−260%
18
+260%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−600%
60−65
+600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−314%
29
+314%
Valorant 30−35
−316%
130−140
+316%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
−2967%
90−95
+2967%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−800%
27
+800%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 7−8
−1671%
120−130
+1671%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−1250%
160−170
+1250%
Valorant 3−4
−5400%
160−170
+5400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 16
Far Cry 5 0−1 27
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−1300%
40−45
+1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 20

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−1800%
35−40
+1800%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−40%
21
+40%
Valorant 6−7
−1483%
95−100
+1483%

4K
Ultra Preset

Dota 2 1−2
−5800%
55−60
+5800%
God of War 0−1 12−14
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−750%
16−18
+750%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−750%
16−18
+750%

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 119
+0%
119
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2 82
+0%
82
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 39
+0%
39
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 18
+0%
18
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
God of War 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6
+0%
6
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+0%
15
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
+0%
6
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

This is how GT 240 and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 780M is 40% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 780M is 2100% faster in 1440p

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

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 780M is 7100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Radeon 780M is ahead in 43 tests (74%)
  • there's a draw in 15 tests (26%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.19 16.59
Recency 17 November 2009 31 January 2024
Chip lithography 40 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 69 Watt 15 Watt

Radeon 780M has a 1294.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 900% more advanced lithography process, and 360% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.

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
AMD Radeon 780M
Radeon 780M

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.


3.4 980 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 2123 votes

Rate Radeon 780M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 240 or Radeon 780M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.