GeForce GT 240 vs FirePro W4100

Place in the ranking	704	1037
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	5.45	1.31
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Cape Verde	GT215
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	13 August 2014 (10 years ago)	17 November 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$80

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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	630 MHz	550 MHz
Number of transistors	1,500 million	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	69 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105C C
Texture fill rate	20.16	17.60
Floating-point processing power	0.6451 TFLOPS	0.2573 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	32	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	PCIe 3.0	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	171 mm	168 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Form factor	low profile / half length	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB or 1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 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	4x mini-DisplayPort	DVIVGAHDMI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Dual-link DVI support	+	-
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

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.2
OpenCL	1.2	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. 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.

FirePro W4100 3.78
+202%

GT 240 1.25

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.

FirePro W4100 1521
+202%

GT 240 503

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	17 −47.1%	25 +47.1%
4K	3	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

3.20

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +100%	9−10 −100%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Valorant	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Dota 2	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +90.9%	10−12 −90.9%
Fortnite	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +100%	9−10 −100%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Grand Theft Auto V	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +150%	14−16 −150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Valorant	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
World of Tanks	65−70 +139%	27−30 −139%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Dota 2	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +90.9%	10−12 −90.9%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +100%	9−10 −100%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +150%	14−16 −150%
Valorant	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	3−4	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	3−4	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 +238%	8−9 −238%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4	0−1
World of Tanks	27−30 +300%	7−8 −300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 5	5−6	0−1
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Valorant	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Fortnite	3−4	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	2−3	0−1
Valorant	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

This is how FirePro W4100 and GT 240 compete in popular games:

GT 240 is 47% faster in 1080p

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

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the FirePro W4100 is 1100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

FirePro W4100 is ahead in 38 tests (88%)
there's a draw in 5 tests (12%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.78	1.25
Recency	13 August 2014	17 November 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB or 1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	69 Watt

FirePro W4100 has a 202.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 38% lower power consumption.

GT 240, on the other hand, has a 25500% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The FirePro W4100 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro W4100 is a workstation graphics 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.