GeForce GT 240M vs Quadro 4000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 4000M with GeForce GT 240M, including specs and performance data.
4000M outperforms 240M by a whopping 516% 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 | 799 | 1285 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.36 | 1.67 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | GT216 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 336 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 26.60 | 8.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6384 TFLOPS | 0.1162 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 174 |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 56 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 64 KB |
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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 625 MHz | Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 25.6 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 | Single Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.1 | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 71
+492%
| 12
−492%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.32 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+241%
|
16−18
−241%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+173%
|
10−12
−173%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+173%
|
10−12
−173%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how Quadro 4000M and GT 240M compete in popular games:
- Quadro 4000M is 492% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro 4000M is 1050% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro 4000M surpassed GT 240M in all 28 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.08 | 0.50 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 15 June 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 23 Watt |
Quadro 4000M has a 516% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GT 240M, on the other hand, has 334.8% lower power consumption.
The Quadro 4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 240M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
