GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon RX 480
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 480 and GeForce GT 240, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 480 outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 1607% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 246 | 1032 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.73 | 0.01 |
| Architecture | Polaris (2016−2019) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 10 Ellesmere | GT215 |
| GCN generation | 4th Gen | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 29 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | $80 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX 480 has 157200% 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 | 2304 | 96 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 96 |
| Compute units | 36 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1120 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1266 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 182.3 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 5.834 gflops | 0.2573 gflops |
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 | n/a | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 8000 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 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 | + | - |
| HDMI | 2.0 | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | 1.4HDR | - |
| 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 | n/a | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| Enduro | n/a | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | n/a | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | n/a | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | n/a | - |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
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 | 77
+208%
| 25
−208%
|
| 1440p | 58
+1833%
| 3−4
−1833%
|
| 4K | 36
+1700%
| 2−3
−1700%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 58
+867%
|
6−7
−867%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
+1867%
|
3−4
−1867%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+6600%
|
2−3
−6600%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100−110
+650%
|
14−16
−650%
|
| Metro Exodus | 93
+1760%
|
5−6
−1760%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+2850%
|
2−3
−2850%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 110
+1275%
|
8−9
−1275%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 95−100
+194%
|
30−35
−194%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 93
+1450%
|
6−7
−1450%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 48
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 31
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+6600%
|
2−3
−6600%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100−110
+650%
|
14−16
−650%
|
| Metro Exodus | 78
+1850%
|
4−5
−1850%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+2850%
|
2−3
−2850%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 75−80
+838%
|
8−9
−838%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+345%
|
10−12
−345%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 95−100
+194%
|
30−35
−194%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35
+483%
|
6−7
−483%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+4400%
|
1−2
−4400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+3750%
|
2−3
−3750%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100−110
+650%
|
14−16
−650%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 75−80
+838%
|
8−9
−838%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+300%
|
10−12
−300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 95−100
+194%
|
30−35
−194%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+2850%
|
2−3
−2850%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 42
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
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 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+1700%
|
7−8
−1700%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50
+2400%
|
2−3
−2400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 120−130
+2050%
|
6−7
−2050%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 60
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 25
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 15 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
This is how RX 480 and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- RX 480 is 208% faster in 1080p
- RX 480 is 1833% faster in 1440p
- RX 480 is 1700% 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 RX 480 is 6600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 480 surpassed GT 240 in all 48 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.36 | 1.31 |
| Recency | 29 June 2016 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 69 Watt |
RX 480 has a 1606.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
GT 240, on the other hand, has a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 117.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 480 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.
