GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon 820M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 820M with GeForce GT 240, including specs and performance data.
820M outperforms GT 240 by a small 8% 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 | 1053 | 1084 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.31 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3+ (2024) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Krackan Point | GT215 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 June 2024 (1 year 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 | 128 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2900 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 32 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7500 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 54.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 data | DVIVGAHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 27−30
+8%
| 25
−8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.20 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+3%
|
30−35
−3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
+7.1%
|
27−30
−7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+3%
|
30−35
−3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how Radeon 820M and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- Radeon 820M is 8% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 820M is 67% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 820M performs better in 13 tests (27%)
- there's a draw in 36 tests (73%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.29 | 1.19 |
| Recency | 2 June 2024 | 17 November 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 40 nm |
Radeon 820M has a 8.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, and a 900% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon 820M and GeForce GT 240.
Be aware that Radeon 820M is a notebook 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.
