GeForce GT 240M vs Radeon RX 540
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 540 and GeForce GT 240M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 540 outperforms GT 240M by a whopping 1204% 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 | 587 | 1267 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 10.13 | 1.69 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Lexa | GT216 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 November 2017 (7 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (16 years ago) |
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 | 512 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1124 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1219 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 39.01 | 8.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.248 TFLOPS | 0.1162 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 174 |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 16 |
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).
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 25.6 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 | No outputs | Single Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| 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.
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 | 24
+100%
| 12
−100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| God of War | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Fortnite | 46
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| God of War | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 23
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+170%
|
27−30
−170%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 29
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+547%
|
16−18
−547%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Dota 2 | 47
+327%
|
10−12
−327%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Fortnite | 34
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| God of War | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+170%
|
27−30
−170%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Dota 2 | 38
+245%
|
10−12
−245%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| God of War | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 19
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+170%
|
27−30
−170%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 22
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+700%
|
5−6
−700%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+1420%
|
5−6
−1420%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| God of War | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+20%
|
14−16
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
This is how RX 540 and GT 240M compete in popular games:
- RX 540 is 100% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 540 is 2500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 540 surpassed GT 240M in all 31 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.65 | 0.51 |
| Recency | 11 November 2017 | 15 June 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 23 Watt |
RX 540 has a 1203.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
GT 240M, on the other hand, has 117.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 540 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M 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.
