FireStream 9250 vs GeForce GT 240

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 240 with FireStream 9250, including specs and performance data.

GT 240
2009
512 MB or 1 GB GDDR5, 69 Watt
1.31

FireStream 9250 outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 131% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1025770
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency1.311.39
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameGT215RV770
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date17 November 2009 (15 years ago)16 June 2008 (16 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 cores96800
Core clock speed550 MHz625 MHz
Number of transistors727 million956 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)69 Watt150 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105C Cno data
Texture fill rate17.6025.00
Floating-point processing power0.2573 TFLOPS1 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs3240

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 supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MB or 1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz993 MHz
Memory bandwidth54.4 GB/s63.55 GB/s

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 ConnectorsDVIVGAHDMI1x DVI
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)10.1 (10_1)
Shader Model4.14.1
OpenGL3.23.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/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.

GT 240 1.31
FireStream 9250 3.02
+131%

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 240 506
FireStream 9250 1164
+130%

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 HD25
−120%
55−60
+120%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.20no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Hitman 3 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−125%
18−20
+125%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−127%
75−80
+127%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Hitman 3 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−125%
18−20
+125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−118%
24−27
+118%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−127%
75−80
+127%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Hitman 3 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−125%
18−20
+125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−118%
24−27
+118%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−127%
75−80
+127%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Hitman 3 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%

This is how GT 240 and FireStream 9250 compete in popular games:

  • FireStream 9250 is 120% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.31 3.02
Recency 17 November 2009 16 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB or 1 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 69 Watt 150 Watt

GT 240 has an age advantage of 1 year, a 51100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 117.4% lower power consumption.

FireStream 9250, on the other hand, has a 130.5% higher aggregate performance score.

The FireStream 9250 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 FireStream 9250 is a workstation one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 240
GeForce GT 240
AMD FireStream 9250
FireStream 9250

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 889 votes

Rate GeForce GT 240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate FireStream 9250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.