Tesla M10 vs GeForce GT 240
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 240 with Tesla M10, including specs and performance data.
M10 outperforms 240 by a whopping 550% 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 | 1089 | 559 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.32 | 2.63 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | GM107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 17 November 2009 (15 years ago) | 18 May 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 640 ×4 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 1033 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1306 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105C C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 17.60 | 52.24 ×4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2573 TFLOPS | 1.672 TFLOPS ×4 |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 ×4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 40 ×4 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 2 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 3.0 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 | 1x 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | 8 GB ×4 |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit ×4 |
| Memory clock speed | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.4 GB/s | 83.2 GB/s ×4 |
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 | No outputs |
| 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 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 5.0 |
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.
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
−540%
| 160−170
+540%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.20 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−511%
|
55−60
+511%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−536%
|
210−220
+536%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−543%
|
180−190
+543%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−525%
|
100−105
+525%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−511%
|
55−60
+511%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−536%
|
210−220
+536%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−525%
|
100−105
+525%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−511%
|
55−60
+511%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−536%
|
210−220
+536%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−525%
|
75−80
+525%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−533%
|
95−100
+533%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
This is how GT 240 and Tesla M10 compete in popular games:
- Tesla M10 is 540% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.13 | 7.35 |
| Recency | 17 November 2009 | 18 May 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 225 Watt |
GT 240 has a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 226.1% lower power consumption.
Tesla M10, on the other hand, has a 550.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Tesla M10 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 240 is a desktop graphics card while Tesla M10 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
