Radeon HD 6550M vs GeForce GT 240
Aggregated performance score
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 984 | 985 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.01 | 0.05 |
| Architecture | GT2xx (2009−2012) | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | Capilano-PRO |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 17 November 2009 (14 years ago) | 26 November 2010 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | no data |
| Current price | $708 (8.9x MSRP) | $338 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
HD 6550M has 400% better value for money than GT 240.
Technical specs
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 | 400 |
| CUDA cores | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 2,154 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 26 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105C C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 17.60 | 12.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 257.28 gflops | 480.0 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 240 and Radeon HD 6550M 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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-II |
| 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 |
Memory
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.4 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.2 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 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.
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%
GeForce GT 240 outperforms Radeon HD 6550M by 40% 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:
| 900p | 14−16
+0%
| 14
+0%
|
| Full HD | 25
+31.6%
| 19
−31.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| 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
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| 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 HD 6550M compete in popular games:
- HD 6550M is 0% faster than GT 240 in 900p
- GT 240 is 31.6% faster than HD 6550M in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 32 tests (100%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Recency | 17 November 2009 | 26 November 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 26 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 240 and Radeon HD 6550M.
Be aware that GeForce GT 240 is a desktop card while Radeon HD 6550M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
