GeForce GT 240 vs Titan X Pascal
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Titan X Pascal and GeForce GT 240, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Titan X Pascal outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 2609% 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 | 198 | 1110 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.05 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 9.58 | 1.28 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP102 | GT215 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 August 2016 (9 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,199 | $80 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Titan X Pascal has 60400% 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 | 3584 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1417 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1531 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 11,800 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 342.9 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.97 TFLOPS | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 8 |
| TMUs | 224 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 1.3 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 64 KB |
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 3.0 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 6-pin + 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 | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1251 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 480.4 GB/s | 54.4 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | DVIVGAHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 | 124
+396%
| 25
−396%
|
| 1440p | 74
+3600%
| 2−3
−3600%
|
| 4K | 58
+2800%
| 2−3
−2800%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 9.67
−202%
| 3.20
+202%
|
| 1440p | 16.20
+147%
| 40.00
−147%
|
| 4K | 20.67
+93.5%
| 40.00
−93.5%
|
- GT 240 has 202% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Titan X Pascal has 147% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Titan X Pascal has 93% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 337
+2708%
|
12−14
−2708%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 83
+2667%
|
3−4
−2667%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 119
+1883%
|
6−7
−1883%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 153
+15200%
|
1−2
−15200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 291
+2810%
|
10−11
−2810%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 74
+2367%
|
3−4
−2367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 162
+8000%
|
2−3
−8000%
|
| Fortnite | 210
+6900%
|
3−4
−6900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 127
+1714%
|
7−8
−1714%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 119
+11800%
|
1−2
−11800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 90
+1400%
|
6−7
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 113
+1156%
|
9−10
−1156%
|
| Valorant | 296
+797%
|
30−35
−797%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 147
+14600%
|
1−2
−14600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 205
+2829%
|
7−8
−2829%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+889%
|
27−30
−889%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65
+2067%
|
3−4
−2067%
|
| Dota 2 | 252
+1475%
|
16−18
−1475%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 149
+7350%
|
2−3
−7350%
|
| Fortnite | 199
+6533%
|
3−4
−6533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 121
+1629%
|
7−8
−1629%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 106
+10500%
|
1−2
−10500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160
+3100%
|
5−6
−3100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 72
+1100%
|
6−7
−1100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 96
+4700%
|
2−3
−4700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 113
+1156%
|
9−10
−1156%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 184
+2967%
|
6−7
−2967%
|
| Valorant | 275
+733%
|
30−35
−733%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 137
+13600%
|
1−2
−13600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57
+1800%
|
3−4
−1800%
|
| Dota 2 | 232
+1350%
|
16−18
−1350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140
+6900%
|
2−3
−6900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 112
+1500%
|
7−8
−1500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 55
+817%
|
6−7
−817%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 102
+1033%
|
9−10
−1033%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95
+1483%
|
6−7
−1483%
|
| Valorant | 181
+448%
|
30−35
−448%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 170
+5567%
|
3−4
−5567%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 111
+2675%
|
4−5
−2675%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+3071%
|
7−8
−3071%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 103
+3333%
|
3−4
−3333%
|
| Metro Exodus | 58
+2800%
|
2−3
−2800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1358%
|
12−14
−1358%
|
| Valorant | 258
+12800%
|
2−3
−12800%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+2700%
|
3−4
−2700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 37 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 101
+10000%
|
1−2
−10000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+2733%
|
3−4
−2733%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 41
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+2650%
|
2−3
−2650%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85
+3900%
|
2−3
−3900%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 99
+607%
|
14−16
−607%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 36
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68
+3300%
|
2−3
−3300%
|
| Valorant | 257
+4183%
|
6−7
−4183%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 71
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 160 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+5200%
|
1−2
−5200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 73
+3550%
|
2−3
−3550%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 22 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 44
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 60
+2900%
|
2−3
−2900%
|
This is how Titan X Pascal and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- Titan X Pascal is 396% faster in 1080p
- Titan X Pascal is 3600% faster in 1440p
- Titan X Pascal is 2800% 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 Titan X Pascal is 15200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Titan X Pascal surpassed GT 240 in all 47 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.15 | 1.15 |
| Recency | 2 August 2016 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 69 Watt |
Titan X Pascal has a 2608.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
GT 240, on the other hand, has a 4166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 262.3% lower power consumption.
The Titan X Pascal 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.
