GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon R9 270X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 270X and GeForce GT 240, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 270X outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 930% 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 | 460 | 1130 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.19 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 5.02 | 1.27 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Curacao | GT215 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (12 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $80 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 270X has 51800% 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1280 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 84.00 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.688 TFLOPS | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 80 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 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 | no data | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 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 | 4 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 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 | 2x 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.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| 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 | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 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 | 250−260
+900%
| 25
−900%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 0.80
+302%
| 3.20
−302%
|
- R9 270X has 302% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+983%
|
6−7
−983%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+983%
|
6−7
−983%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+2200%
|
3−4
−2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+614%
|
7−8
−614%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+378%
|
9−10
−378%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+228%
|
30−35
−228%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+983%
|
6−7
−983%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+526%
|
27−30
−526%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+400%
|
16−18
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+2200%
|
3−4
−2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+614%
|
7−8
−614%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+378%
|
9−10
−378%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+228%
|
30−35
−228%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+400%
|
16−18
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+614%
|
7−8
−614%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+378%
|
9−10
−378%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+228%
|
30−35
−228%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+2200%
|
3−4
−2200%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+1171%
|
7−8
−1171%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+458%
|
12−14
−458%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+3767%
|
3−4
−3767%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+967%
|
3−4
−967%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+588%
|
8−9
−588%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
This is how R9 270X and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- R9 270X is 900% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 270X is 3767% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 270X surpassed GT 240 in all 38 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.74 | 1.14 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 69 Watt |
R9 270X has a 930% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
GT 240, on the other hand, has a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 161% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 270X 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.
