Radeon HD 8240 vs GeForce GTX 550 Ti
Aggregate performance score
GeForce GTX 550 Ti outperforms Radeon HD 8240 by a whopping 557% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 654 | 1164 |
| Place by popularity | 71 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.29 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | GF116 | Temash |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 March 2011 (13 years ago) | 23 May 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
| Current price | $197 (1.3x MSRP) | $280 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 550 Ti and HD 8240 have a nearly equal value for money.
Detailed specifications
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 | 192 | 128 |
| CUDA cores | 192 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 1,178 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 28.8 billion/sec | 3.200 |
| Floating-point performance | 691.2 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 550 Ti and Radeon HD 8240 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | IGP |
| Length | 8.25" (21 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | One 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | no 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 type | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 4.1 GB/s | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 98.4 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | no data | + |
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 | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | no data |
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.
GeForce GTX 550 Ti outperforms Radeon HD 8240 by 557% based on our aggregate 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%
GeForce GTX 550 Ti outperforms Radeon HD 8240 by 562% in Passmark.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 550 Ti outperforms Radeon HD 8240 by 431% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 550 Ti outperforms Radeon HD 8240 by 643% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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:
| 900p | 38
+660%
| 5−6
−660%
|
| Full HD | 30
+650%
| 4−5
−650%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+63.6%
|
10−12
−63.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+63.6%
|
10−12
−63.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+63.6%
|
10−12
−63.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how GTX 550 Ti and HD 8240 compete in popular games:
- GTX 550 Ti is 660% faster in 900p
- GTX 550 Ti is 650% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 550 Ti is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 550 Ti surpassed HD 8240 in all 32 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.01 | 0.61 |
| Recency | 15 March 2011 | 23 May 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 15 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 550 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8240 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 550 Ti is a desktop card while Radeon HD 8240 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
