GeForce GT 240M vs Quadro M4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M4000 with GeForce GT 240M, including specs and performance data.
M4000 outperforms 240M by a whopping 3092% 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 | 364 | 1285 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.41 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.21 | 1.67 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GT216 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 June 2015 (10 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $791 | 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 | 1664 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 773 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 80.39 | 8.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.573 TFLOPS | 0.1162 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 174 |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 104 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 624 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 192 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 | 4x DisplayPort | Single Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync | 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 |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 5.2 | + |
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.
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 | 350−400
+2817%
| 12
−2817%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.26 | no data |
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%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
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%
|
This is how Quadro M4000 and GT 240M compete in popular games:
- Quadro M4000 is 2817% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 28 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.96 | 0.50 |
| Recency | 29 June 2015 | 15 June 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 23 Watt |
Quadro M4000 has a 3092% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 240M, on the other hand, has 421.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M4000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 240M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
