Radeon R5 M420 vs GeForce GT 240M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 240M and Radeon R5 M420, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R5 M420 outperforms GT 240M by a whopping 133% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1229 | 1050 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.64 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | Jet |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 June 2009 (15 years ago) | 15 May 2016 (8 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 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 780 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 690 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 8.800 | 17.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1162 TFLOPS | 0.544 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 174 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 20 |
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 3.0 x8 |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 16 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 | 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.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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 | 12
−125%
| 27−30
+125%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−17.9%
|
30−35
+17.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−64.7%
|
27−30
+64.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−17.9%
|
30−35
+17.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−17.9%
|
30−35
+17.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Valorant | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how GT 240M and R5 M420 compete in popular games:
- R5 M420 is 125% 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 R5 M420 is 600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 M420 is ahead in 32 tests (71%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (29%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.55 | 1.28 |
| Recency | 15 June 2009 | 15 May 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
R5 M420 has a 132.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R5 M420 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
