Radeon R5 (Kaveri) vs GeForce GT 240M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 240M and Radeon R5 (Kaveri), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 240M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.55

R5 (Kaveri) outperforms GT 240M by a whopping 120% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12151050
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.64no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)GCN 1.1 (2014)
GPU code nameGT216Kaveri
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 June 2009 (15 years ago)4 June 2014 (10 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 cores48256
Core clock speed550 MHz514 MHz
Boost clock speedno data626 MHz
Number of transistors486 million2410 Million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Wattno data
Texture fill rate8.800no data
Floating-point processing power0.1162 TFLOPSno data
Gigaflops174no data
ROPs8no data
TMUs16no 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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedmedium sized
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data

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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount1 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bit64/128 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHzno data
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data
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 data
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 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model4.1no data
OpenGL2.1no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
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
R5 (Kaveri) 1.21
+120%

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
R5 (Kaveri) 3011
+27%

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
−100%
24−27
+100%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Hitman 3 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−6.7%
30−35
+6.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Hitman 3 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−10%
10−12
+10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−6.7%
30−35
+6.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−10%
10−12
+10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−6.7%
30−35
+6.7%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 1−2
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

This is how GT 240M and R5 (Kaveri) compete in popular games:

  • R5 (Kaveri) is 100% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R5 (Kaveri) is 400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R5 (Kaveri) is ahead in 27 tests (60%)
  • there's a draw in 18 tests (40%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.55 1.21
Recency 15 June 2009 4 June 2014
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm

R5 (Kaveri) has a 120% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R5 (Kaveri) 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
AMD Radeon R5 (Kaveri)
Radeon R5 (Kaveri)

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 84 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 7 votes

Rate Radeon R5 (Kaveri) 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.