GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon R9 Nano
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 Nano and GeForce GT 240, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 Nano outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 1579% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 249 | 1027 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.35 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 8.76 | 1.32 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | GT215 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 27 August 2015 (9 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $80 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R9 Nano has 53400% better value for money than GT 240.
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 | 4096 | 96 |
| Compute units | 64 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 256.0 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.192 TFLOPS | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 256 | 32 |
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 | 152 mm | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR5 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | 54.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | DVIVGAHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| 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 | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API compatibility
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 | 4.5 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. 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.
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.
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.
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 | 90
+260%
| 25
−260%
|
| 4K | 44
+2100%
| 2−3
−2100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.21 | 3.20 |
| 4K | 14.75 | 40.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+1700%
|
4−5
−1700%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
+1833%
|
3−4
−1833%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+6550%
|
2−3
−6550%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100−110
+643%
|
14−16
−643%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+1800%
|
4−5
−1800%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+2800%
|
2−3
−2800%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 70−75
+813%
|
8−9
−813%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 95−100
+191%
|
30−35
−191%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+1700%
|
4−5
−1700%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
+1833%
|
3−4
−1833%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+6550%
|
2−3
−6550%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100−110
+643%
|
14−16
−643%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+1800%
|
4−5
−1800%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+2800%
|
2−3
−2800%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 70−75
+813%
|
8−9
−813%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+336%
|
10−12
−336%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 95−100
+191%
|
30−35
−191%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+6550%
|
2−3
−6550%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100−110
+643%
|
14−16
−643%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 70−75
+813%
|
8−9
−813%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+327%
|
10−12
−327%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 95−100
+191%
|
30−35
−191%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+2800%
|
2−3
−2800%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+1671%
|
7−8
−1671%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 120−130
+2017%
|
6−7
−2017%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 110−120
+1800%
|
6−7
−1800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
This is how R9 Nano and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- R9 Nano is 260% faster in 1080p
- R9 Nano is 2100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R9 Nano is 6550% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 Nano surpassed GT 240 in all 48 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.00 | 1.31 |
| Recency | 27 August 2015 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 69 Watt |
R9 Nano has a 1579.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 240, on the other hand, has a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 153.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 Nano is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
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.
