GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon R9 M280X
Aggregated performance score
Radeon R9 M280X outperforms GeForce GT 240 by 60% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 825 | 986 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | Saturn XT | GT215 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 February 2015 (9 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $80 |
| Current price | no data | $708 (8.9x MSRP) |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 896 | 96 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 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 | 61.60 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,792 gflops | 257.28 gflops |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on Radeon R9 M280X 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | Not Listed | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | 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 | no data | None |
| Memory type | Not Listed | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 0 MB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | Not Listed | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 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 GPU 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® 11 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 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 R9 M280X outperforms GeForce GT 240 by 60% 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 R9 M280X outperforms GeForce GT 240 by 60% 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%
Radeon R9 M280X outperforms GeForce GT 240 by 77% 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 | 27
+8%
| 25
−8%
|
| 4K | 18
+80%
| 10−12
−80%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| 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 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| 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 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 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 R9 M280X and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- R9 M280X is 8% faster than GT 240 in 1080p
- R9 M280X is 80% faster than GT 240 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M280X is 300% faster than the GT 240.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 M280X is ahead in 22 tests (76%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (24%)
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 2.10 | 1.31 |
| Recency | 1 February 2015 | 17 November 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
The Radeon R9 M280X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M280X 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.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
