Radeon X1650 vs GeForce GT 240

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking988not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
ArchitectureGT2xx (2009−2012)R500 (2005−2007)
GPU code nameGT215RV516
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date17 November 2009 (14 years ago)20 November 2007 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$80 no data
Current price$708 (8.9x MSRP)$166

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores96no data
CUDA cores96no data
Core clock speed550 MHz635 MHz
Number of transistors727 million107 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)69 Wattno data
Maximum GPU temperature105C Cno data
Texture fill rate17.602.540
Floating-point performance257.28 gflopsno 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 supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length6.6" (168mm) (16.8 cm)no data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR2
Maximum RAM amount512 MB or 1 GB256 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz784 MHz
Memory bandwidth54.4 GB/s6.272 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 ConnectorsDVIVGAHDMI1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+no data
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model4.13.0
OpenGL3.22.0
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GT 240 509
+617%
ATI X1650 71

GeForce GT 240 outperforms Radeon X1650 by 617% in Passmark.

Pros & cons summary


Recency 17 November 2009 20 November 2007
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB or 1 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 80 nm

We couldn't decide between GeForce GT 240 and Radeon X1650. 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.

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
ATI Radeon X1650
Radeon X1650

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.4 773 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 62 votes

Rate Radeon X1650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.