Radeon RX 7700 XT vs GeForce GT 240
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 240 and Radeon RX 7700 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
7700 XT outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 4696% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1132 | 53 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | 72.28 |
| Power efficiency | 1.27 | 17.19 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 November 2009 (16 years ago) | 25 August 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 7700 XT has 722700% better value for money than GT 240.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 3456 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 1435 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2544 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 245 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105C C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 17.60 | 549.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2573 TFLOPS | 35.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 96 |
| TMUs | 32 | 216 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 54 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 864 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 48 MB |
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 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 8-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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.4 GB/s | 432.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 Connectors | DVIVGAHDMI | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 3.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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
−640%
| 185
+640%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−5000%
| 102
+5000%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−5800%
| 59
+5800%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.20
−31.8%
| 2.43
+31.8%
|
| 1440p | 40.00
−809%
| 4.40
+809%
|
| 4K | 80.00
−951%
| 7.61
+951%
|
- RX 7700 XT has 32% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 7700 XT has 809% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 7700 XT has 951% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−9550%
|
193
+9550%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 160−170 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7800%
|
158
+7800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−9300%
|
188
+9300%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−8033%
|
240−250
+8033%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3871%
|
278
+3871%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−16800%
|
160−170
+16800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1833%
|
170−180
+1833%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−841%
|
300−350
+841%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 160−170 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−930%
|
270−280
+930%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−6500%
|
132
+6500%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−4588%
|
750−800
+4588%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−8950%
|
181
+8950%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−8033%
|
240−250
+8033%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3786%
|
272
+3786%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−16800%
|
160−170
+16800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−15100%
|
152
+15100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1833%
|
170−180
+1833%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−4114%
|
295
+4114%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−841%
|
300−350
+841%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 160−170 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−6000%
|
122
+6000%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−4588%
|
750−800
+4588%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−8250%
|
167
+8250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3200%
|
231
+3200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1833%
|
170−180
+1833%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−2300%
|
168
+2300%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−841%
|
300−350
+841%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−8033%
|
240−250
+8033%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−4133%
|
127
+4133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−5671%
|
400−450
+5671%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1358%
|
170−180
+1358%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−11600%
|
350−400
+11600%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 80 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 157 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−6467%
|
197
+6467%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−5900%
|
120
+5900%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−7450%
|
150−160
+7450%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−647%
|
112
+647%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−3788%
|
300−350
+3788%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 351
+0%
|
351
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 229
+0%
|
229
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 344
+0%
|
344
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 243
+0%
|
243
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
This is how GT 240 and RX 7700 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 7700 XT is 640% faster in 1080p
- RX 7700 XT is 5000% faster in 1440p
- RX 7700 XT is 5800% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 7700 XT is 16800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 7700 XT performs better in 36 tests (69%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (31%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.14 | 54.68 |
| Recency | 17 November 2009 | 25 August 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 245 Watt |
GT 240 has a 4167% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 255% lower power consumption.
RX 7700 XT, on the other hand, has a 4696% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 7700 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
