T1000 vs Radeon HD 8240

Place in performance ranking	1160	264
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	39.15
Architecture	GCN (2011−2017)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	Temash	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	23 May 2013 (11 years ago)	6 May 2021 (3 years ago)
Current price	$280	$119

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

HD 8240 and T1000 have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	128	896
Core clock speed	400 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	1395 MHz
Number of transistors	1,178 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	3.200	78.12

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon HD 8240 and T1000 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Interface	IGP	PCIe 3.0 x16
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	System Shared	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	4 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	10 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	no data	160.0 GB/s
Shared memory	+	no data

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

4x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2
CUDA	no data	7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

HD 8240 0.60

T1000 19.82
+3203%

T1000 outperforms Radeon HD 8240 by 3203% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

HD 8240 234

T1000 7669
+3177%

T1000 outperforms Radeon HD 8240 by 3177% in Passmark.

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 Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−3067%

95−100
+3067%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −3150%	260−270 +3150%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −3067%	95−100 +3067%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −3150%	65−70 +3150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −3067%	190−200 +3067%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −3150%	260−270 +3150%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −3067%	95−100 +3067%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −3150%	65−70 +3150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −3067%	190−200 +3067%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −3067%	95−100 +3067%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −3067%	95−100 +3067%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −3067%	95−100 +3067%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −3150%	65−70 +3150%
Hitman 3	3−4 −3067%	95−100 +3067%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −3150%	260−270 +3150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −3150%	130−140 +3150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%
Hitman 3	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −3186%	230−240 +3186%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	3−4 −3067%	95−100 +3067%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −3100%	160−170 +3100%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.60	19.82
Recency	23 May 2013	6 May 2021
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	50 Watt