GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon R7 260
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 260 and GeForce GT 240, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 260 outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 501% 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 | 597 | 1112 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.28 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 5.60 | 1.28 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Bonaire | GT215 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 17 December 2013 (12 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | $80 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R7 260 has 32700% better value for money than GT 240.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
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 | 768 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 48.00 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.536 TFLOPS | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 48 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 192 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 170 mm | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1625 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 104 GB/s | 54.4 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | DVIVGAHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort 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.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
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 | 150−160
+500%
| 25
−500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 0.73
+340%
| 3.20
−340%
|
- R7 260 has 340% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how R7 260 and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- R7 260 is 500% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 42 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.91 | 1.15 |
| Recency | 17 December 2013 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 69 Watt |
R7 260 has a 501% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
GT 240, on the other hand, has a 25500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 67% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
