GeForce GT 240 vs Quadro M500M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M500M with GeForce GT 240, including specs and performance data.
M500M outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 137% 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 | 831 | 1098 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 7.16 | 1.31 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GM108 | GT215 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 27 April 2016 (9 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $80 |
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 | 384 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 17.98 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8632 TFLOPS | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1024 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 | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 54.4 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 | 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.
| Optimus | + | - |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | 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 | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 5.0 | + |
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 | 15
−66.7%
| 25
+66.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.20 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+39.4%
|
30−35
−39.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+92.9%
|
27−30
−92.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+39.4%
|
30−35
−39.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+39.4%
|
30−35
−39.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how Quadro M500M and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- GT 240 is 67% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro M500M is 900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro M500M surpassed GT 240 in all 47 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.80 | 1.18 |
| Recency | 27 April 2016 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 69 Watt |
Quadro M500M has a 137.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 130% lower power consumption.
GT 240, on the other hand, has a 25500% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Quadro M500M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M500M is a mobile workstation graphics 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.
