GeForce GT 240 vs GTX 860M
Aggregated performance score
GTX 860M outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 494% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 484 | 984 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.06 | 0.01 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | N15P-GX | GT215 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $80 |
| Current price | $875 | $708 (8.9x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 860M has 10500% better value for money than GT 240.
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 | 640 | 96 |
| CUDA cores | 1152 or 640 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 797 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 915 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 43.40 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,389 gflops | 257.28 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 860M and GeForce GT 240 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.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 6.6" (168mm) (16.8 cm) |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 2500 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80.0 GB/s | 54.4 GB/s |
| 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 | No outputs | DVIVGAHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP content protection | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | no data |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 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 860M outperforms GT 240 by 494% 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 860M outperforms GT 240 by 495% in Passmark.
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%
GTX 860M outperforms GT 240 by 268% 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 | 91
+550%
| 14−16
−550%
|
| Full HD | 37
+48%
| 25
−48%
|
| 4K | 13
+550%
| 2−3
−550%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Hitman 3 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Hitman 3 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 860M and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- GTX 860M is 550% faster in 900p
- GTX 860M is 48% faster in 1080p
- GTX 860M is 550% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 860M is 2600% faster than the GT 240.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 860M surpassed GT 240 in all 32 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.84 | 1.32 |
| Recency | 12 March 2014 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 69 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 860M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 860M is a notebook card while GeForce GT 240 is a desktop 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.
