Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs GeForce GT 240M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GT 220M GT 230M GT 240M GT 240M LE GT 540M GT 630M GT 635M GT 640M GT 650M GT 720M GT 740M GT 750M
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 240M and Iris Xe MAX Graphics, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 240M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.55

Iris Xe MAX Graphics outperforms GT 240M by a whopping 829% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

GT 240M GT 240M
Iris Xe MAX Graphics Iris Xe MAX Graphics

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1208617
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.6614.16
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code nameGT216DG1
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 June 2009 (15 years ago)31 October 2020 (4 years ago)

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 cores48768
Core clock speed550 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1650 MHz
Number of transistors486 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate8.80079.20
Floating-point processing power0.1162 TFLOPS2.534 TFLOPS
Gigaflops174no data
ROPs824
TMUs1648

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x4

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 typeGDDR3LPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz2133 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s68.26 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 ConnectorsSingle Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMIVGANo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.4
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.2
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
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 5.11
+829%

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
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 1971
+825%

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 HD12
−125%
27
+125%
1440p1−2
−1600%
17
+1600%
4K1−2
−1500%
16
+1500%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−575%
27−30
+575%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−667%
21−24
+667%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−3100%
30−35
+3100%
Hitman 3 5−6
−380%
24
+380%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−455%
60−65
+455%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−517%
35−40
+517%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−127%
65−70
+127%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−575%
27−30
+575%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−667%
21−24
+667%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−3100%
30−35
+3100%
Hitman 3 5−6
−360%
23
+360%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−455%
60−65
+455%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−450%
33
+450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−190%
27−30
+190%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−127%
65−70
+127%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−575%
27−30
+575%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−667%
21−24
+667%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Hitman 3 5−6
−320%
21
+320%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−136%
26
+136%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−383%
29
+383%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−80%
18
+80%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−127%
65−70
+127%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−1600%
16−18
+1600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 10−12
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1200%
12−14
+1200%
Hitman 3 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−667%
21−24
+667%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−7100%
70−75
+7100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−533%
18−20
+533%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 5−6

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−450%
10−12
+450%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 19
+0%
19
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Metro Exodus 57
+0%
57
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 33
+0%
33
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6
+0%
6
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Metro Exodus 43
+0%
43
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 25
+0%
25
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 20
+0%
20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+0%
11
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 11
+0%
11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how GT 240M and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 125% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 1600% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 1500% faster in 4K

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 7100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is ahead in 35 tests (50%)
  • there's a draw in 35 tests (50%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.55 5.11
Recency 15 June 2009 31 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 25 Watt

GT 240M has 8.7% lower power consumption.

Iris Xe MAX Graphics, on the other hand, has a 829.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Xe MAX Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M in performance tests.

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 240M
GeForce GT 240M
Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics
Iris Xe MAX Graphics
Like
Like

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

GT 240M GeForce GT 240M
vs
GT 230M GeForce GT 230M
Iris Xe MAX Graphics Iris Xe MAX Graphics
vs
RX 640 Radeon RX 640
GT 240M GeForce GT 240M
vs
Go 7600 GT GeForce Go 7600 GT
GT 130M GeForce GT 130M
vs
R4 (Stoney Ridge) Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge)
Arc 7-Core iGPU Arc 7 Core iGPU
vs
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q
Arc 7-Core iGPU Arc 7 Core iGPU
vs
GeForce 6600 GeForce 6600
Arc 7-Core iGPU Arc 7 Core iGPU
vs
HD Graphics 4000 HD Graphics 4000
RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB
vs
3000M X2 Quadro 3000M X2
GT 240M GeForce GT 240M
vs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
GT 240M GeForce GT 240M
vs
G96C G96C
GT 420M GeForce GT 420M
vs
MX150 GP107 GeForce MX150 GP107
HD 6640G2 Radeon HD 6640G2
vs
Durango 2 Durango 2
GT 335M GeForce GT 335M
vs
GF106 GF106

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.2 74 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 252 votes

Rate Iris Xe MAX Graphics 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.