Radeon R9 255 OEM vs GeForce GT 240
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1025 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.31 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 November 2009 (15 years ago) | 21 December 2013 (10 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 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 930 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105C C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 17.60 | 29.76 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2573 TFLOPS | 0.9523 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.4 GB/s | 73.6 GB/s |
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 | + | - |
| 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 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 17 November 2009 | 21 December 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 65 Watt |
GT 240 has a 25500% higher maximum VRAM amount.
R9 255 OEM, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 6.2% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between GeForce GT 240 and Radeon R9 255 OEM. We've got no test results to judge.
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.
