Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) vs GeForce GT 240
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 240 with Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge), including specs and performance data.
GT 240 outperforms R4 (Stoney Ridge) by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1034 | 1072 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.31 | 5.37 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | Stoney Ridge |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 17 November 2009 (15 years ago) | 1 June 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 15 Watt |
| 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).
| 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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz | no data |
| 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.2 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| 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. 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.
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
+213%
| 8
−213%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.20 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Elden Ring | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+40%
|
5
−40%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Elden Ring | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 27−30
+7.7%
|
24−27
−7.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how GT 240 and R4 (Stoney Ridge) compete in popular games:
- GT 240 is 213% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 240 is 50% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 240 is ahead in 16 tests (41%)
- there's a draw in 23 tests (59%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.31 | 1.17 |
| Recency | 17 November 2009 | 1 June 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 15 Watt |
GT 240 has a 12% higher aggregate performance score.
R4 (Stoney Ridge), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 360% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 240 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 240 is a desktop card while Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
