GeForce GT 240 vs GTX 560
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 560 and GeForce GT 240, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 560 outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 454% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 564 | 1050 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.63 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 3.28 | 1.29 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | GT215 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 May 2011 (13 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $80 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 560 has 16200% better value for money than GT 240.
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 | 336 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 99 °C | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 45.36 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.089 TFLOPS | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 56 | 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 | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 210 mm | 168 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 54.4 GB/s |
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, Mini HDMI | DVIVGAHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | + | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.1 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/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.
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 | 130−140
+420%
| 25
−420%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 1.53
+109%
| 3.20
−109%
|
- GTX 560 has 109% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how GTX 560 and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- GTX 560 is 420% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 48 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.20 | 1.12 |
| Recency | 17 May 2011 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 69 Watt |
GTX 560 has a 453.6% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
GT 240, on the other hand, has a 51100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 117.4% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 560 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 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.
