GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon R9 370

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
360 OEM 370 370 1024SP 370X 380 380 OEM 380X 390 390 X2 390X 390X2
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
220 220 OEM 230 230 OEM 240 440 610 630 640 710 730 740

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 370 and GeForce GT 240, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 370
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 110 Watt
11.29
+882%

R9 370 outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 882% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R9 370 R9 370
GT 240 GT 240

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking4601112
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency7.901.28
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameTrinidadGT215
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date5 May 2015 (11 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.

no data

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 cores128096
Core clock speed925 MHz550 MHz
Boost clock speed975 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,800 million727 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)110 Watt69 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105C C
Texture fill rate78.0017.60
Floating-point processing power2.496 TFLOPS0.2573 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs8032
L1 Cache384 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KB64 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 supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length221 mm168 mm
Heightno data4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB or 1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s54.4 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortDVIVGAHDMI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.63.2
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/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.

R9 370 11.29
+882%
GT 240 1.15

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.

R9 370 4722
+894%
Samples: 3
GT 240 475
Samples: 1946

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 HD45
+80%
25
−80%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.20

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 R9 370 and GT 240 compete in popular games:

  • R9 370 is 80% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 42 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 11.29 1.15
Recency 5 May 2015 17 November 2009
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB or 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 110 Watt 69 Watt

R9 370 has a 882% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

GT 240, on the other hand, has a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 59% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 370 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.

R9 370 Radeon R9 370
vs
HD 7950 Radeon HD 7950
GT 240 GeForce GT 240
vs
9800 GT GeForce 9800 GT
R9 370 Radeon R9 370
vs
GTX 580 GeForce GTX 580
R9 360 OEM Radeon R9 360 OEM
vs
7800 GS AGP GeForce 7800 GS AGP
R9 360 OEM Radeon R9 360 OEM
vs
GeForce4 MX 440 MX 440
R9 360 OEM Radeon R9 360 OEM
vs
Quadro P4200 Quadro P4200
R9 370 Radeon R9 370
vs
GTX 970M GTX 970M
R9 370 Radeon R9 370
vs
GRID K2 GRID K2
R9 370 Radeon R9 370
vs
6200 AGP GeForce 6200 AGP
R9 370 Radeon R9 370
vs
GeForce4 MX 420 PCI MX 420 PCI
R9 370 Radeon R9 370
vs
Apple M1 Pro 16-Core GPU Pro 16-Core GPU
R9 380 OEM Radeon R9 380 OEM
vs
ATI HD 5490 HD 5490
R9 380 OEM Radeon R9 380 OEM
vs
R7 Graphics R7 Graphics

Community ratings

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

4 495 votes

Rate Radeon R9 370 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 1034 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 370 or GeForce GT 240, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.