Radeon RX 6500 XT vs GeForce GT 240

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 240 and Radeon RX 6500 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 240
2009
512 MB or 1 GB GDDR5, 69 Watt
1.30

RX 6500 XT outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 1802% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1041228
Place by popularitynot in top-10095
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0158.23
Power efficiency1.3015.94
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGT215Navi 24
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date17 November 2009 (15 years ago)19 January 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$80 $199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

RX 6500 XT has 582200% better value for money than GT 240.

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 cores961024
Core clock speed550 MHz2610 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2815 MHz
Number of transistors727 million5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)69 Watt107 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105C Cno data
Texture fill rate17.60180.2
Floating-point processing power0.2573 TFLOPS5.765 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs3264
Ray Tracing Coresno data16

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 x4
Length168 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB or 1 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz2248 MHz
Memory bandwidth54.4 GB/s143.9 GB/s
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 ConnectorsDVIVGAHDMI1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
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 Model4.16.6
OpenGL3.24.6
OpenCL1.12.2
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 1.30
RX 6500 XT 24.72
+1802%

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 240 503
RX 6500 XT 9557
+1800%

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
RX 6500 XT 76445
+1364%

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
−160%
65
+160%
1440p1−2
−2900%
30
+2900%
4K0−116

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.20
−4.5%
3.06
+4.5%
1440p80.00
−1106%
6.63
+1106%
4Kno data12.44
  • GT 240 and RX 6500 XT have nearly equal cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX 6500 XT has 1106% lower cost per frame in 1440p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
−2675%
111
+2675%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−700%
64
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2300%
72
+2300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
−2000%
84
+2000%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−9200%
90−95
+9200%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−400%
40
+400%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1700%
54
+1700%
Fortnite 3−4
−3767%
110−120
+3767%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−1229%
90−95
+1229%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−900%
90−95
+900%
Valorant 30−35
−391%
160−170
+391%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
−1100%
48
+1100%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−9200%
90−95
+9200%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−250%
28
+250%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
−807%
250−260
+807%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1033%
34
+1033%
Dota 2 16−18
−806%
145
+806%
Fortnite 3−4
−3767%
110−120
+3767%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−1229%
90−95
+1229%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
−8500%
86
+8500%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−2500%
52
+2500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−900%
90−95
+900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−1433%
92
+1433%
Valorant 30−35
−391%
160−170
+391%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−9200%
90−95
+9200%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−200%
24
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−900%
30
+900%
Dota 2 16−18
−588%
110
+588%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−1229%
90−95
+1229%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−900%
90−95
+900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−800%
54
+800%
Valorant 30−35
−391%
160−170
+391%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
−3767%
110−120
+3767%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
−2200%
21−24
+2200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 7−8
−2257%
160−170
+2257%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−2088%
170−180
+2088%
Valorant 4−5
−4925%
200−210
+4925%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1600%
17
+1600%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−5600%
57
+5600%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−1900%
60−65
+1900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−1850%
35−40
+1850%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
−1800%
18−20
+1800%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−127%
34
+127%
Valorant 7−8
−1829%
130−140
+1829%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 4
Dota 2 1−2
−6600%
67
+6600%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−1050%
23
+1050%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−1100%
24−27
+1100%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−1150%
24−27
+1150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Far Cry 5 102
+0%
102
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 66
+0%
66
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Far Cry 5 92
+0%
92
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35
+0%
35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 86
+0%
86
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 47
+0%
47
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 37
+0%
37
+0%
Metro Exodus 18
+0%
18
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 23
+0%
23
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 11
+0%
11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+0%
28
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3
+0%
3
+0%

This is how GT 240 and RX 6500 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 6500 XT is 160% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6500 XT is 2900% 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 RX 6500 XT is 9200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 6500 XT is ahead in 49 tests (74%)
  • there's a draw in 17 tests (26%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.30 24.72
Recency 17 November 2009 19 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB or 1 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 69 Watt 107 Watt

GT 240 has a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 55.1% lower power consumption.

RX 6500 XT, on the other hand, has a 1801.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6500 XT 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 RX 6500 XT
Radeon RX 6500 XT

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.


3.4 939 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 3400 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6500 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 240 or Radeon RX 6500 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.