Arc A770 vs GeForce GT 240M

Place in the ranking	1219	153
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	54.70
Power efficiency	1.75	10.99
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GT216	DG2-512
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	15 June 2009 (15 years ago)	12 October 2022 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$329

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	48	4096
CUDA cores	48	no data
Core clock speed	550 MHz	2100 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2400 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	8.800	614.4
Floating-point processing power	0.1162 TFLOPS	19.66 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	174	no data
ROPs	8	128
TMUs	16	256
Tensor Cores	no data	512
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	32

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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 6-pin + 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	GDDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	512.0 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 Connectors	Single Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMIVGA	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management

8.0

no data

API 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	6.6
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 240M 0.55

Arc A770 33.69
+6025%

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 240M 213

Arc A770 12994
+6000%

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 240M 2372

Arc A770 103295
+4256%

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	12 −875%	117 +875%
1440p	1−2 −7100%	72 +7100%
4K	0−1	42

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−1300%

40−45
+1300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −1525%	65 +1525%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −1667%	50−55 +1667%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1300%	40−45 +1300%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −6600%	65−70 +6600%
Hitman 3	5−6 −940%	50−55 +940%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −973%	110−120 +973%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −1367%	85−90 +1367%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −250%	100−110 +250%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −675%	31 +675%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −1667%	50−55 +1667%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1300%	40−45 +1300%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −6600%	65−70 +6600%
Hitman 3	5−6 −940%	50−55 +940%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −973%	110−120 +973%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −4200%	258 +4200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −460%	55−60 +460%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −250%	100−110 +250%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −1025%	45 +1025%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −1667%	50−55 +1667%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1300%	40−45 +1300%
Hitman 3	5−6 −940%	50−55 +940%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −1000%	121 +1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −3500%	216 +3500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −620%	72 +620%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −147%	74 +147%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−3800%

35−40
+3800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	40
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1600%	16−18 +1600%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%
Hitman 3	6−7 −417%	30−35 +417%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −3233%	100 +3233%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −14400%	140−150 +14400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−1333%

40−45
+1333%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −2900%	30 +2900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	38

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−1000%

21−24
+1000%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	92 +0%	92 +0%
Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	79 +0%	79 +0%
Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	72 +0%	72 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	23 +0%	23 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

65−70

+0%

65−70

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5

45−50

+0%

45−50

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	60 +0%	60 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Metro Exodus	91 +0%	91 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	158 +0%	158 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60 +0%	60 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Hitman 3	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Metro Exodus	83 +0%	83 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	73 +0%	73 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8 +0%	8 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	89 +0%	89 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	37 +0%	37 +0%

This is how GT 240M and Arc A770 compete in popular games:

Arc A770 is 875% faster in 1080p
Arc A770 is 7100% faster in 1440p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A770 is 14400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Arc A770 is ahead in 35 tests (50%)
there's a draw in 35 tests (50%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.55	33.69
Recency	15 June 2009	12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	225 Watt

GT 240M has 878.3% lower power consumption.

Arc A770, on the other hand, has a 6025.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 240M is a notebook card while Arc A770 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.