GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon RX 5600 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 5600 XT and GeForce GT 240, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 5600 XT outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 2597% 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 | 183 | 1084 |
| Place by popularity | 89 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 44.28 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 16.30 | 1.31 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | GT215 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 21 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | $80 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 5600 XT has 442700% better value for money than GT 240.
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 cores | 2304 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1130 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 224.6 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.188 TFLOPS | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 144 | 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 | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 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 |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 54.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | DVIVGAHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.2 |
| 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 | 106
+324%
| 25
−324%
|
| 1440p | 62
+3000%
| 2−3
−3000%
|
| 4K | 36
+3500%
| 1−2
−3500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.63
+21.6%
| 3.20
−21.6%
|
| 1440p | 4.50
+789%
| 40.00
−789%
|
| 4K | 7.75
+932%
| 80.00
−932%
|
- RX 5600 XT has 22% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 5600 XT has 789% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 5600 XT has 932% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 320
+3100%
|
10−11
−3100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 83
+2667%
|
3−4
−2667%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 109
+1717%
|
6−7
−1717%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+11700%
|
1−2
−11700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 257
+2756%
|
9−10
−2756%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 74
+2367%
|
3−4
−2367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 148
+4833%
|
3−4
−4833%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+4767%
|
3−4
−4767%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 185
+2543%
|
7−8
−2543%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 104
+10300%
|
1−2
−10300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 84
+1300%
|
6−7
−1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+1344%
|
9−10
−1344%
|
| Valorant | 275
+733%
|
30−35
−733%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+11700%
|
1−2
−11700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 135
+2600%
|
5−6
−2600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+889%
|
27−30
−889%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 63
+2000%
|
3−4
−2000%
|
| Dota 2 | 185
+1056%
|
16−18
−1056%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 135
+4400%
|
3−4
−4400%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+4767%
|
3−4
−4767%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 173
+2371%
|
7−8
−2371%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 91
+9000%
|
1−2
−9000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 126 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65
+983%
|
6−7
−983%
|
| Metro Exodus | 81
+3950%
|
2−3
−3950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+1344%
|
9−10
−1344%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140
+1900%
|
7−8
−1900%
|
| Valorant | 272
+724%
|
30−35
−724%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+11700%
|
1−2
−11700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54
+1700%
|
3−4
−1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 168
+950%
|
16−18
−950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 126
+4100%
|
3−4
−4100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 138
+1871%
|
7−8
−1871%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 49
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+1344%
|
9−10
−1344%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
+1100%
|
7−8
−1100%
|
| Valorant | 148
+348%
|
30−35
−348%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 140−150
+4767%
|
3−4
−4767%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80
+2567%
|
3−4
−2567%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+3143%
|
7−8
−3143%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 61
+2950%
|
2−3
−2950%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1358%
|
12−14
−1358%
|
| Valorant | 252
+8300%
|
3−4
−8300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+2767%
|
3−4
−2767%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+8800%
|
1−2
−8800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 109
+3533%
|
3−4
−3533%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 36
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+2800%
|
2−3
−2800%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 80−85
+4050%
|
2−3
−4050%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 63
+320%
|
14−16
−320%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Valorant | 214
+3467%
|
6−7
−3467%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 99
+9800%
|
1−2
−9800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+4400%
|
1−2
−4400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70
+3400%
|
2−3
−3400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
This is how RX 5600 XT and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- RX 5600 XT is 324% faster in 1080p
- RX 5600 XT is 3000% faster in 1440p
- RX 5600 XT is 3500% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 5600 XT is 11700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 5600 XT surpassed GT 240 in all 49 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.10 | 1.19 |
| Recency | 21 January 2020 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 69 Watt |
RX 5600 XT has a 2597.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
GT 240, on the other hand, has a 8433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 117.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 5600 XT 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.
