GeForce GT 240 vs ATI Mobility Radeon
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon with GeForce GT 240, including specs and performance data.
ATI Mobility outperforms GT 240 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1034 | 1041 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.31 |
| Architecture | Rage 6 (2000−2007) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | M6 | GT215 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 December 2001 (23 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.
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 | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 144 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 30 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 180 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 0.43 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 1 | 8 |
| TMUs | 3 | 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 | AGP 4x | 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 | DDR | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 MB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 144 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 2.304 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 | No outputs | DVIVGAHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 7.0 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 1.3 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 24−27
−4.2%
| 25
+4.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.20 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how ATI Mobility and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- GT 240 is 4% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 42 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.28 | 1.26 |
| Recency | 1 December 2001 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 MB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 40 nm |
ATI Mobility has a 1.6% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 240, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 3276700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 350% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Mobility Radeon and GeForce GT 240.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon is a notebook 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.
