GeForce GT 335M vs Radeon R7 240
Aggregated performance score
Radeon R7 240 outperforms GeForce GT 335M by 136% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 806 | 1066 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.16 | 0.02 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | GT200 (2010) |
| GPU code name | Oland | N11P-GS1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (10 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $69 | no data |
| Current price | $109 (1.6x MSRP) | $310 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R7 240 has 700% better value for money than GT 335M.
Technical specs
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 | 320 | 72 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 72 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 780 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 14.00 | 10.80 |
| Floating-point performance | 499.2 gflops | 155.52 gflops |
| Gigaflops | no data | 233 |
Size and compatibility
Information on Radeon R7 240 and GeForce GT 335M 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.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | N/A | no data |
| SLI options | no data | + |
Memory
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 | GDDR5 | DDR3, GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | Single Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | - | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | no data |
| CrossFire | 1 | no data |
| Enduro | - | no data |
| FreeSync | 1 | no data |
| HD3D | - | no data |
| PowerTune | - | no data |
| TrueAudio | - | no data |
| ZeroCore | - | no data |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | no data | N/A |
| Mantle | - | no data |
| CUDA | no data | + |
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.
Radeon R7 240 outperforms GeForce GT 335M by 136% 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%
Radeon R7 240 outperforms GeForce GT 335M by 136% in Passmark.
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 | 35−40
+119%
| 16
−119%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 2.34 | 0.99 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 7 January 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 28 Watt |
The Radeon R7 240 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 335M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 240 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 335M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
