Radeon HD 8240 vs Quadro CX

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro CX with Radeon HD 8240, including specs and performance data.


Quadro CX
2008, $1,999
1536 MB GDDR3, 150 Watt
2.26
+283%

CX outperforms HD 8240 by a whopping 283% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking9081269
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.02no data
Power efficiency1.163.03
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameGT200BKalindi
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date11 November 2008 (17 years ago)1 November 2013 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores192128
Core clock speed602 MHz400 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million1,178 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate38.533.200
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPS0.1024 TFLOPS
ROPs244
TMUs648
L2 Cache192 KBno 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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16IGP
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1536 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width384 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth76.8 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Model4.06.3
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA1.3-

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.

Quadro CX 2.26
+283%
HD 8240 0.59

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.

Quadro CX 947
+285%
Samples: 3
HD 8240 246
Samples: 203

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 28 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.26 0.59
Recency 11 November 2008 1 November 2013
Chip lithography 55 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 15 Watt

Quadro CX has a 283% higher aggregate performance score.

HD 8240, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 96% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.

The Quadro CX is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8240 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro CX is a workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 8240 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


5 1 vote

Rate Quadro CX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 43 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro CX or Radeon HD 8240, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.