Quadro FX 570 vs GeForce GT 240
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 240 with Quadro FX 570, including specs and performance data.
GT 240 outperforms FX 570 by a whopping 130% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1041 | 1221 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 1.31 | 1.03 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | G84 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 17 November 2009 (15 years ago) | 12 September 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
FX 570 has 100% better value for money than GT 240.
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 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 460 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 38 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105C C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 17.60 | 3.680 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2573 TFLOPS | 0.02944 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 8 |
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 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 198 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| 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 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.4 GB/s | 12.8 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 Connectors | DVIVGAHDMI | 2x DVI |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.2 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.1 |
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.
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.
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
+150%
| 10−12
−150%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.20
+522%
| 19.90
−522%
|
- GT 240 has 522% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| World of Tanks | 27−30
+133%
|
12−14
−133%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
This is how GT 240 and FX 570 compete in popular games:
- GT 240 is 150% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.29 | 0.56 |
| Recency | 17 November 2009 | 12 September 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 38 Watt |
GT 240 has a 130.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 204700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
FX 570, on the other hand, has 81.6% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 240 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 570 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 240 is a desktop card while Quadro FX 570 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
