Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce GT 240 vs GTX 280
Aggregated performance score
GTX 280
2008
1GB GDDR3
3.35
+154%
GT 240
2009
512 MB or 1GB GDDR5
1.32
GTX 280 outperforms GT 240 by 154% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 699 | 985 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.24 | 0.01 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | GT200 | GT215 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 16 June 2008 (15 years old) | 17 November 2009 (14 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $80 |
| Current price | $159 (0.2x MSRP) | $708 (8.9x MSRP) |
Value for money
GTX 280 has 2300% better value for money than GT 240.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 240 | 96 |
| CUDA cores | 240 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 602 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 236 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 48.2 billion/sec | 17.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 622.1 gflops | 257.28 gflops |
Size and 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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | 6.6" (168mm) (16.8 cm) |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 6-pin & 8-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
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 | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1107 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 141.7 GB/s | 54.4 GB/s |
Video outputs and ports
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 | HDTVDual Link DVI | DVIVGAHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | + | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | Internal |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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 280 outperforms GT 240 by 154% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GTX 280 outperforms GT 240 by 155% in Passmark.
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 | 60−65
+140%
| 25
−140%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 3.35 | 1.32 |
| Recency | 16 June 2008 | 17 November 2009 |
| Cost | $649 | $80 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 236 Watt | 69 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
