Quadro NVS 290 vs GeForce GT 240

Place in the ranking	1022	1198
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	no data
Power efficiency	1.32	1.95
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GT215	G86
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	17 November 2009 (14 years ago)	4 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$80	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 240 and NVS 290 have a nearly equal value for money.

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	459 MHz
Number of transistors	727 million	210 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	69 Watt	21 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105C C	no data
Texture fill rate	17.60	3.672
Floating-point processing power	0.2573 TFLOPS	0.02938 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	4
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	168 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	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz	400 MHz
Memory bandwidth	54.4 GB/s	6.4 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	1x DMS-59
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

API 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. 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
+122%

NVS 290 0.59

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
+122%

NVS 290 228

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%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5
+300%

1−2

−300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3	0−1
Hitman 3	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +136%	14−16 −136%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3	0−1
Hitman 3	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +136%	14−16 −136%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	2−3	0−1
Hitman 3	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +136%	14−16 −136%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+300%

1−2

−300%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
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
+200%

1−2

−200%

This is how GT 240 and NVS 290 compete in popular games:

GT 240 is 150% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.31	0.59
Recency	17 November 2009	4 October 2007
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB or 1 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	69 Watt	21 Watt

GT 240 has a 122% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 204700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 290, on the other hand, has 228.6% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 240 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 290 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 240 is a desktop card while Quadro NVS 290 is a workstation one.

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