GeForce GT 240 vs GTX 1650 SUPER

Place in the ranking	214	1037
Place by popularity	48	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	18.21	1.30
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	TU116	GT215
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	22 November 2019 (5 years ago)	17 November 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$80

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	1280	96
Core clock speed	1530 MHz	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	1725 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,600 million	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	69 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105C C
Texture fill rate	138.0	17.60
Floating-point processing power	4.416 TFLOPS	0.2573 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	80	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).

Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	229 mm	168 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB or 1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	12000 MHz	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 GB/s	54.4 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	DVIVGAHDMI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready	+	no data
Multi Monitor	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.5	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.2
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	7.5	+

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.

GTX 1650 SUPER 26.11
+1924%

GT 240 1.29

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.

GTX 1650 SUPER 10165
+1921%

GT 240 503

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.

GTX 1650 SUPER 64463
+1135%

GT 240 5221

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	70 +180%	25 −180%
1440p	36 +3500%	1−2 −3500%
4K	23 +2200%	1−2 −2200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	3.20
1440p	no data	80.00
4K	no data	80.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	61 +771%	7−8 −771%
Cyberpunk 2077	63 +1475%	4−5 −1475%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +7900%	1−2 −7900%
Counter-Strike 2	48 +586%	7−8 −586%
Cyberpunk 2077	47 +1075%	4−5 −1075%
Forza Horizon 4	121 +1244%	9−10 −1244%
Forza Horizon 5	75 +2400%	3−4 −2400%
Metro Exodus	89 +2125%	4−5 −2125%
Red Dead Redemption 2	84 +1300%	6−7 −1300%
Valorant	115 +2200%	5−6 −2200%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +7900%	1−2 −7900%
Counter-Strike 2	39 +457%	7−8 −457%
Cyberpunk 2077	38 +850%	4−5 −850%
Dota 2	138 +13700%	1−2 −13700%
Far Cry 5	151 +1273%	10−12 −1273%
Fortnite	130−140 +2500%	5−6 −2500%
Forza Horizon 4	101 +1022%	9−10 −1022%
Forza Horizon 5	75 +2400%	3−4 −2400%
Grand Theft Auto V	103 +10200%	1−2 −10200%
Metro Exodus	61 +1933%	3−4 −1933%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +1064%	14−16 −1064%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30 +400%	6−7 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	85−90 +1143%	7−8 −1143%
Valorant	100−110 +2020%	5−6 −2020%
World of Tanks	260−270 +839%	27−30 −839%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +7900%	1−2 −7900%
Counter-Strike 2	35 +400%	7−8 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	32 +700%	4−5 −700%
Dota 2	191 +19000%	1−2 −19000%
Far Cry 5	75−80 +618%	10−12 −618%
Forza Horizon 4	83 +822%	9−10 −822%
Forza Horizon 5	51 +2450%	2−3 −2450%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +1064%	14−16 −1064%
Valorant	100−110 +2020%	5−6 −2020%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	45 +2150%	2−3 −2150%
Grand Theft Auto V	45 +2150%	2−3 −2150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +2400%	7−8 −2400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	11	0−1
World of Tanks	170−180 +2386%	7−8 −2386%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +2550%	2−3 −2550%
Cyberpunk 2077	19 +533%	3−4 −533%
Far Cry 5	75−80 +1480%	5−6 −1480%
Forza Horizon 4	60 +2900%	2−3 −2900%
Forza Horizon 5	54	0−1
Metro Exodus	55 +2650%	2−3 −2650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +700%	5−6 −700%
Valorant	70−75 +1100%	6−7 −1100%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Dota 2	45 +200%	14−16 −200%
Grand Theft Auto V	45 +200%	14−16 −200%
Metro Exodus	16	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 +1925%	4−5 −1925%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45 +200%	14−16 −200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +2700%	1−2 −2700%
Counter-Strike 2	2 −200%	6−7 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 +150%	2−3 −150%
Dota 2	80 +433%	14−16 −433%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +3400%	1−2 −3400%
Fortnite	30−35 +3200%	1−2 −3200%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
Forza Horizon 5	39 +3800%	1−2 −3800%
Valorant	35−40 +3400%	1−2 −3400%

This is how GTX 1650 SUPER and GT 240 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 SUPER is 180% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 SUPER is 3500% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 SUPER is 2200% faster in 4K

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

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 SUPER is 19000% faster.
in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 240 is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead in 42 tests (98%)
GT 240 is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	26.11	1.29
Recency	22 November 2019	17 November 2009
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB or 1 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	69 Watt