GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon R7 M260

Place in performance ranking	995	988
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.04	0.01
Architecture	GCN (2011−2017)	GT2xx (2009−2012)
GPU code name	Opal Pro / Mars	GT215
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	7 January 2014 (10 years ago)	17 November 2009 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$799	$80
Current price	$430 (0.5x MSRP)	$708 (8.9x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 M260 has 300% better value for money than GT 240.

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	384	96
CUDA cores	no data	96
Compute units	6	no data
Core clock speed	715 MHz	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	980 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,550 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	23.52	17.60
Floating-point performance	721.9 gflops	257.28 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon R7 M260 and GeForce GT 240 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	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	6.6" (168mm) (16.8 cm)
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	DDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB or 1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	54.4 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	DVIVGAHDMI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
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.

AppAcceleration	-	no data
Enduro	-	no data
FreeSync	1	no data
HD3D	+	no data
PowerTune	+	no data
DualGraphics	1	no data
TrueAudio	-	no data
ZeroCore	+	no data
Switchable graphics	1	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.3	4.1
OpenGL	4.3	3.2
OpenCL	2.0	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.

R7 M260 1.28

GT 240 1.32
+3.1%

GeForce GT 240 outperforms Radeon R7 M260 by 3% 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%

R7 M260 495

GT 240 509
+2.8%

GeForce GT 240 outperforms Radeon R7 M260 by 3% in Passmark.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

R7 M260 5425
+3.9%

GT 240 5221

Radeon R7 M260 outperforms GeForce GT 240 by 4% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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

−92.3%

25
+92.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	1−2
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	1−2
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4 +0%	4−5 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	1−2
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

This is how R7 M260 and GT 240 compete in popular games:

GT 240 is 92.3% faster than R7 M260 in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 240 is 33.3% faster than the R7 M260.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 240 is ahead in 3 tests (10%)
there's a draw in 26 tests (90%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.28	1.32
Recency	7 January 2014	17 November 2009
Cost	$799	$80
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB or 1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R7 M260 and GeForce GT 240.

Be aware that Radeon R7 M260 is a notebook card while GeForce GT 240 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

Radeon R7 M260

GeForce GT 240

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3 197 votes

Rate Radeon R7 M260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

3.4 758 votes

Rate GeForce GT 240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.