GeForce GT 240 vs Iris Graphics 6100

Place in the ranking	860	1041
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	10.75	1.31
Architecture	Generation 8.0 (2014−2015)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Broadwell GT3	GT215
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	5 January 2015 (10 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.

no data

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	384	96
Core clock speed	300 MHz	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	69 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105C C
Texture fill rate	48.00	17.60
Floating-point processing power	0.768 TFLOPS	0.2573 TFLOPS
ROPs	6	8
TMUs	48	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	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	Ring Bus	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	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	System Shared	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	512 MB or 1 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	54.4 GB/s
Shared memory	+	-

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	Portable Device Dependent	DVIVGAHDMI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
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.

Quick Sync

no data

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_1)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.4	3.2
OpenCL	3.0	1.1
Vulkan	+	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. 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.

Iris Graphics 6100 2.26
+78%

GT 240 1.27

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.

Iris Graphics 6100 898
+78.5%

GT 240 503

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.

Iris Graphics 6100 6531
+25.1%

GT 240 5221

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

−92.3%

25
+92.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

3.20

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2	0−1
Metro Exodus	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Valorant	0−1	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Dota 2	7 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +36.4%	10−12 −36.4%
Fortnite	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12 −16.7%	14−16 +16.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Valorant	0−1	0−1
World of Tanks	33 +17.9%	27−30 −17.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Dota 2	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +36.4%	10−12 −36.4%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +57.1%	14−16 −57.1%
Valorant	0−1	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	0−1	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 +87.5%	8−9 −87.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
World of Tanks	14−16 +114%	7−8 −114%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Valorant	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Fortnite	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	0−1	0−1
Valorant	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

This is how Iris Graphics 6100 and GT 240 compete in popular games:

GT 240 is 92% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Graphics 6100 is 1700% faster.
in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 240 is 17% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Iris Graphics 6100 is ahead in 35 tests (83%)
GT 240 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
there's a draw in 6 tests (14%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.26	1.27
Recency	5 January 2015	17 November 2009
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	69 Watt

Iris Graphics 6100 has a 78% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 360% lower power consumption.

The Iris Graphics 6100 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Graphics 6100 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.