GeForce GT 240 vs RTX 2080 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile with GeForce GT 240, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2080 Mobile outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 2962% 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 | 147 | 1083 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 18.50 | 1.31 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | TU104B | GT215 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 January 2019 (6 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $80 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2944 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1380 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 292.6 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.362 TFLOPS | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 184 | 32 |
| Tensor Cores | 368 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 46 | no data |
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).
| 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 | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 384.0 GB/s | 54.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | DVIVGAHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 7.5 | + |
| DLSS | + | - |
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.
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.
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 | 142
+468%
| 25
−468%
|
| 1440p | 94
+3033%
| 3−4
−3033%
|
| 4K | 65
+3150%
| 2−3
−3150%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.20 |
| 1440p | no data | 26.67 |
| 4K | no data | 40.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+3300%
|
6−7
−3300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
| God of War | 85−90
+1660%
|
5−6
−1660%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 132
+13100%
|
1−2
−13100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+3300%
|
6−7
−3300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 104
+5100%
|
2−3
−5100%
|
| Fortnite | 206
+6767%
|
3−4
−6767%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 147
+2000%
|
7−8
−2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 85−90
+1660%
|
5−6
−1660%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 243
+2600%
|
9−10
−2600%
|
| Valorant | 276
+763%
|
30−35
−763%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 118
+11700%
|
1−2
−11700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+3300%
|
6−7
−3300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+893%
|
27−30
−893%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
| Dota 2 | 131
+719%
|
16−18
−719%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 97
+4750%
|
2−3
−4750%
|
| Fortnite | 169
+5533%
|
3−4
−5533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 145
+1971%
|
7−8
−1971%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 85−90
+1660%
|
5−6
−1660%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 101 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 90
+4400%
|
2−3
−4400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 214
+2278%
|
9−10
−2278%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 174
+2386%
|
7−8
−2386%
|
| Valorant | 266
+731%
|
30−35
−731%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 117
+11600%
|
1−2
−11600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
| Dota 2 | 125
+681%
|
16−18
−681%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 96
+4700%
|
2−3
−4700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 139
+1886%
|
7−8
−1886%
|
| God of War | 85−90
+1660%
|
5−6
−1660%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 174
+1833%
|
9−10
−1833%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95
+1257%
|
7−8
−1257%
|
| Valorant | 205
+541%
|
30−35
−541%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 155
+5067%
|
3−4
−5067%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+2933%
|
3−4
−2933%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+3557%
|
7−8
−3557%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1358%
|
12−14
−1358%
|
| Valorant | 260
+8567%
|
3−4
−8567%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 115
+3733%
|
3−4
−3733%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 82 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122
+3967%
|
3−4
−3967%
|
| God of War | 45−50
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 124
+6100%
|
2−3
−6100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+420%
|
14−16
−420%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| Valorant | 240
+3900%
|
6−7
−3900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 68
+3300%
|
2−3
−3300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 119
+11800%
|
1−2
−11800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82
+4000%
|
2−3
−4000%
|
| God of War | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 61
+2950%
|
2−3
−2950%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 61
+2950%
|
2−3
−2950%
|
This is how RTX 2080 Mobile and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- RTX 2080 Mobile is 468% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2080 Mobile is 3033% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2080 Mobile is 3150% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 2080 Mobile is 13100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 2080 Mobile surpassed GT 240 in all 43 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 36.44 | 1.19 |
| Recency | 29 January 2019 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 69 Watt |
RTX 2080 Mobile has a 2962.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
GT 240, on the other hand, has a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 117.4% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GT 240 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
