Quadro P3200 vs GeForce GT 240M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 240M with Quadro P3200, including specs and performance data.
P3200 outperforms 240M by a whopping 3964% 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 | 1288 | 304 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.68 | 20.99 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 15 June 2009 (16 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (7 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 cores | 48 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 1328 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1543 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.800 | 172.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1162 TFLOPS | 5.53 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 174 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 112 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 672 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 1536 KB |
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 | large |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | 1753 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 168.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | Single Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMIVGA | No outputs |
| 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.
| Optimus | - | + |
| Power management | 8.0 | 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 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
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.
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 | 12
−600%
| 84
+600%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 28 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95
+2275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−900%
|
80−85
+900%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−463%
|
150−160
+463%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−1324%
|
240−250
+1324%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−982%
|
119
+982%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2100%
|
88
+2100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 45−50 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−900%
|
80−85
+900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1300%
|
84
+1300%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−463%
|
150−160
+463%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−918%
|
112
+918%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1700%
|
72
+1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−900%
|
80−85
+900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−667%
|
46
+667%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−463%
|
150−160
+463%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1333%
|
40−45
+1333%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−7400%
|
150−160
+7400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−3360%
|
170−180
+3360%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−2200%
|
45−50
+2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2550%
|
50−55
+2550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1500%
|
30−35
+1500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 45−50 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−179%
|
35−40
+179%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1000%
|
21−24
+1000%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
This is how GT 240M and Quadro P3200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P3200 is 600% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P3200 is 7400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P3200 performs better in 28 tests (45%)
- there's a draw in 34 tests (55%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.50 | 20.32 |
| Recency | 15 June 2009 | 21 February 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 75 Watt |
GT 240M has 226.1% lower power consumption.
Quadro P3200, on the other hand, has a 3964% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 240M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P3200 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
