GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon R6 M340DX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R6 M340DX with GeForce GT 240, including specs and performance data.
R6 M340DX outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 131% 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 | 857 | 1112 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.28 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Jet | GT215 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 December 2015 (10 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 | 955 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1030 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 24.72 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.791 TFLOPS | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | IGP | 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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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 | 10
−150%
| 25
+150%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.20 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+37.5%
|
30−35
−37.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+92.6%
|
27−30
−92.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+37.5%
|
30−35
−37.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| 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 | 3
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+37.5%
|
30−35
−37.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| 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 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8 | 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 R6 M340DX and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- GT 240 is 150% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R6 M340DX is 1100% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 240 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R6 M340DX performs better in 40 tests (95%)
- GT 240 performs better in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.66 | 1.15 |
| Recency | 12 December 2015 | 17 November 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
R6 M340DX has a 131% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R6 M340DX is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R6 M340DX 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.
