Radeon RX 9070 XT vs GeForce GT 240
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 240 and Radeon RX 9070 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 9070 XT outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 5300% 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 | 1068 | 29 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 97 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | 60.71 |
| Power efficiency | 1.27 | 15.62 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | RDNA 4.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | Navi 48 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 November 2009 (15 years ago) | 6 March 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 9070 XT has 607000% better value for money than GT 240.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 1660 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2970 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 53,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 304 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105C C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 17.60 | 760.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2573 TFLOPS | 48.66 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 128 |
| TMUs | 32 | 256 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 64 |
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 5.0 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 | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz | 2518 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.4 GB/s | 644.6 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
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 | + | - |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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
−736%
| 209
+736%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−6400%
| 130
+6400%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−8200%
| 83
+8200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.20
−11.7%
| 2.87
+11.7%
|
| 1440p | 40.00
−768%
| 4.61
+768%
|
| 4K | 80.00
−1009%
| 7.22
+1009%
|
- RX 9070 XT has 12% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 9070 XT has 768% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 9070 XT has 1009% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 4−5
−8675%
|
351
+8675%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−5333%
|
160−170
+5333%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 4−5
−6700%
|
272
+6700%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−17400%
|
170−180
+17400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−5333%
|
160−170
+5333%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−29500%
|
296
+29500%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−9967%
|
300−350
+9967%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3571%
|
250−260
+3571%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1856%
|
170−180
+1856%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1012%
|
350−400
+1012%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 4−5
−5800%
|
236
+5800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−17400%
|
170−180
+17400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−893%
|
270−280
+893%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−5333%
|
160−170
+5333%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−5213%
|
850−900
+5213%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−28400%
|
285
+28400%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−9967%
|
300−350
+9967%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3571%
|
250−260
+3571%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 160−170 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−8200%
|
160−170
+8200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1856%
|
170−180
+1856%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−8183%
|
497
+8183%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1012%
|
350−400
+1012%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 4−5
−5700%
|
232
+5700%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−17400%
|
170−180
+17400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−5333%
|
160−170
+5333%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−5213%
|
850−900
+5213%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−26900%
|
270
+26900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3571%
|
250−260
+3571%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1856%
|
170−180
+1856%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4500%
|
276
+4500%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1012%
|
350−400
+1012%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−9967%
|
300−350
+9967%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 190−200 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−7114%
|
500−550
+7114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2400%
|
170−180
+2400%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−11175%
|
450−500
+11175%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−9200%
|
90−95
+9200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−7267%
|
220−230
+7267%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−21100%
|
212
+21100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−7450%
|
150−160
+7450%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−888%
|
150−160
+888%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−5417%
|
300−350
+5417%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 45−50 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4700%
|
95−100
+4700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 169
+0%
|
169
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 260
+0%
|
260
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 174
+0%
|
174
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 93
+0%
|
93
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 152
+0%
|
152
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
This is how GT 240 and RX 9070 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 9070 XT is 736% faster in 1080p
- RX 9070 XT is 6400% faster in 1440p
- RX 9070 XT is 8200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 9070 XT is 29500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 9070 XT is ahead in 41 tests (68%)
- there's a draw in 19 tests (32%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.22 | 65.88 |
| Recency | 17 November 2009 | 6 March 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 304 Watt |
GT 240 has a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 340.6% lower power consumption.
RX 9070 XT, on the other hand, has a 5300% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 9070 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.
