GeForce GT 240 vs MX150
Aggregate performance score
MX150 outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 347% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 557 | 989 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.14 | 0.01 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | N17S-G1 | GT215 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 16 May 2017 (7 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $80 |
| Current price | $1049 | $708 (8.9x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce MX150 has 11300% 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 | 384 | 96 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1468 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1532 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt (10 - 25 Watt TGP) | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 24.91 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,127 gflops | 257.28 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce MX150 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | 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 |
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 |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 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 | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | + |
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.
MX150 outperforms GT 240 by 347% 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%
MX150 outperforms GT 240 by 348% 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%
MX150 outperforms GT 240 by 111% 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:
| Full HD | 28
+12%
| 25
−12%
|
| 1440p | 30
+400%
| 6−7
−400%
|
| 4K | 21
+425%
| 4−5
−425%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | no data |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 19 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 20 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 25 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 10−12 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 36 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 23
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14 | no data |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 13 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 18 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 71 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 10−12 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 17
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 24−27 | no data |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 12 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 24−27 | no data |
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18 | no data |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9 | no data |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 10−11 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11 | no data |
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 6−7 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 6−7 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7 | no data |
This is how GeForce MX150 and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX150 is 12% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX150 is 400% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX150 is 425% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.90 | 1.32 |
| Recency | 16 May 2017 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 69 Watt |
The GeForce MX150 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX150 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.
