GeForce GT 240 vs Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile with GeForce GT 240, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5000 Mobile outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 2657% 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 | 169 | 1078 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 22.56 | 1.30 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | GT215 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 27 May 2019 (6 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.
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 | 3072 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1035 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1545 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 296.6 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.492 TFLOPS | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 192 | 32 |
| Tensor Cores | 384 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | no 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 54.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| 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.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 7.5 | + |
| DLSS | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
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 | 132
+428%
| 25
−428%
|
| 1440p | 84
+2700%
| 3−4
−2700%
|
| 4K | 54
+5300%
| 1−2
−5300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.20 |
| 1440p | no data | 26.67 |
| 4K | no data | 80.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+3033%
|
6−7
−3033%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+3700%
|
2−3
−3700%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 165
+16400%
|
1−2
−16400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+3033%
|
6−7
−3033%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+3700%
|
2−3
−3700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 128
+6300%
|
2−3
−6300%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+4867%
|
3−4
−4867%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+1743%
|
7−8
−1743%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+1378%
|
9−10
−1378%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+538%
|
30−35
−538%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 162
+16100%
|
1−2
−16100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+3033%
|
6−7
−3033%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+862%
|
27−30
−862%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+3700%
|
2−3
−3700%
|
| Dota 2 | 98
+513%
|
16−18
−513%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 123
+6050%
|
2−3
−6050%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+4867%
|
3−4
−4867%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+1743%
|
7−8
−1743%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 99
+4850%
|
2−3
−4850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+1378%
|
9−10
−1378%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 181
+2486%
|
7−8
−2486%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+538%
|
30−35
−538%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 152
+15100%
|
1−2
−15100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+3700%
|
2−3
−3700%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+475%
|
16−18
−475%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 115
+5650%
|
2−3
−5650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+1743%
|
7−8
−1743%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+1378%
|
9−10
−1378%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 100
+1329%
|
7−8
−1329%
|
| Valorant | 181
+466%
|
30−35
−466%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 140−150
+4867%
|
3−4
−4867%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+3900%
|
2−3
−3900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+3214%
|
7−8
−3214%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+3200%
|
2−3
−3200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 59
+2850%
|
2−3
−2850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1358%
|
12−14
−1358%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+5875%
|
4−5
−5875%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 124
+3000%
|
4−5
−3000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 102 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+2967%
|
3−4
−2967%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+5900%
|
1−2
−5900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 85−90
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+325%
|
16−18
−325%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+3267%
|
6−7
−3267%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 73
+3550%
|
2−3
−3550%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 100−105
+9900%
|
1−2
−9900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 56
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+2950%
|
2−3
−2950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
This is how RTX 5000 Mobile and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 428% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 2700% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 5300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 5000 Mobile is 16400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 5000 Mobile surpassed GT 240 in all 40 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.53 | 1.18 |
| Recency | 27 May 2019 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 69 Watt |
RTX 5000 Mobile has a 2656.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
GT 240, on the other hand, has a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 59.4% lower power consumption.
The Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile 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.
