FirePro W2100 vs GeForce GT 240

Place in the ranking	1037	852
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	no data
Power efficiency	1.30	6.22
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GT215	Oland
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	17 November 2009 (15 years ago)	12 August 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$80	no data

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	96	320
Core clock speed	550 MHz	630 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	680 MHz
Number of transistors	727 million	950 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	69 Watt	26 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105C C	no data
Texture fill rate	17.60	13.60
Floating-point processing power	0.2573 TFLOPS	0.4352 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	32	20

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	PCI-E 2.0	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	168 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Form factor	no data	low profile / half length
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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB or 1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	54.4 GB/s	28.8 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	DVIVGAHDMI	2x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
DisplayPort count	no data	2
Dual-link DVI support	-	+
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (11_1)
Shader Model	4.1	5.1
OpenGL	3.2	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
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.

GT 240 1.29

FirePro W2100 2.32
+79.8%

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.

GT 240 503

FirePro W2100 903
+79.5%

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	25 +92.3%	13 −92.3%
4K	1−2 −100%	2 +100%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.20	no data
4K	80.00	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Dota 2	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −36.4%	14−16 +36.4%
Fortnite	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −57.1%	21−24 +57.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%
World of Tanks	27−30 −57.1%	40−45 +57.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Dota 2	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −36.4%	14−16 +36.4%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −57.1%	21−24 +57.1%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −114%	14−16 +114%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	1−2
World of Tanks	7−8 −114%	14−16 +114%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Forza Horizon 5	0−1	2−3
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Valorant	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Dota 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	1−2
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Valorant	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Forza Horizon 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Valorant	0−1	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Forza Horizon 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Valorant	0−1	0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Valorant	0−1	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	0−1	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Fortnite	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	0−1	0−1

This is how GT 240 and FirePro W2100 compete in popular games:

GT 240 is 92% faster in 1080p
FirePro W2100 is 100% faster in 4K

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

in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the FirePro W2100 is 500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

FirePro W2100 is ahead in 37 tests (73%)
there's a draw in 14 tests (27%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.29	2.32
Recency	17 November 2009	12 August 2014
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB or 1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	69 Watt	26 Watt

GT 240 has a 25500% higher maximum VRAM amount.

FirePro W2100, on the other hand, has a 79.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 165.4% lower power consumption.

The FirePro W2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 240 is a desktop card while FirePro W2100 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.