GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

Place in the ranking	490	1035
Place by popularity	28	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	41.43	1.31
Architecture	Vega (2017−2020)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Vega	GT215
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	7 January 2020 (5 years ago)	17 November 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$80

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	96
Core clock speed	no data	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	2100 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	69 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105C C
Texture fill rate	no data	17.60
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.2573 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	8
TMUs	no data	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	no data	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	168 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	no data	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	no data	512 MB or 1 GB
Memory bus width	no data	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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	no data	DVIVGAHDMI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12_1	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	no data	4.1
OpenGL	no data	3.2
OpenCL	no data	1.1
Vulkan	-	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. 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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 9.01
+588%

GT 240 1.31

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 22428
+330%

GT 240 5221

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	23 −8.7%	25 +8.7%
1440p	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
4K	9 +800%	1−2 −800%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	3.20
1440p	no data	40.00
4K	no data	80.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	13 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	19 +375%	4−5 −375%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +2800%	1−2 −2800%
Counter-Strike 2	12 +71.4%	7−8 −71.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +275%	4−5 −275%
Forza Horizon 4	32 +256%	9−10 −256%
Forza Horizon 5	21 +600%	3−4 −600%
Metro Exodus	27 +800%	3−4 −800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	33 +371%	7−8 −371%
Valorant	44 +633%	6−7 −633%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +2800%	1−2 −2800%
Counter-Strike 2	9 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +175%	4−5 −175%
Dota 2	29 +2800%	1−2 −2800%
Far Cry 5	30 +200%	10−11 −200%
Fortnite	50−55 +960%	5−6 −960%
Forza Horizon 4	27 +200%	9−10 −200%
Forza Horizon 5	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Grand Theft Auto V	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Metro Exodus	19 +850%	2−3 −850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	57 +307%	14−16 −307%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12 +71.4%	7−8 −71.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +286%	7−8 −286%
Valorant	14 +600%	2−3 −600%
World of Tanks	48 +71.4%	27−30 −71.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +2800%	1−2 −2800%
Counter-Strike 2	8 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +125%	4−5 −125%
Dota 2	48 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +280%	10−11 −280%
Forza Horizon 4	23 +156%	9−10 −156%
Forza Horizon 5	14 +600%	2−3 −600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +407%	14−16 −407%
Valorant	37 +640%	5−6 −640%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	9 +800%	1−2 −800%
Grand Theft Auto V	9 +800%	1−2 −800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	22 +175%	8−9 −175%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8	0−1
World of Tanks	21 +200%	7−8 −200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +280%	5−6 −280%
Forza Horizon 4	16 +700%	2−3 −700%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Metro Exodus	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Valorant	39 +550%	6−7 −550%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Dota 2	10 −50%	14−16 +50%
Grand Theft Auto V	10 −50%	14−16 +50%
Metro Exodus	6	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	13 +225%	4−5 −225%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10 −50%	14−16 +50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Dota 2	18 +20%	14−16 −20%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Fortnite	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Forza Horizon 4	9 +800%	1−2 −800%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7	0−1
Valorant	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%

This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GT 240 compete in popular games:

GT 240 is 9% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 750% faster in 1440p
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 800% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 4700% faster.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 240 is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 38 tests (88%)
GT 240 is ahead in 4 tests (9%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.01	1.31
Recency	7 January 2020	17 November 2009
Chip lithography	7 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	69 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 587.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 360% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 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.