UHD Graphics 750 vs GeForce GT 240

Place in performance ranking	1032	656
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	no data
Architecture	GT2xx (2009−2012)	no data
GPU code name	GT215	Rocket Lake GT1
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	17 November 2009 (14 years ago)	30 March 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$80	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	96	no data
CUDA cores	96	no data
Core clock speed	550 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	727 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)	69 Watt	15 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105C C	no data
Texture fill rate	17.60	20.80
Floating-point performance	0.2573 gflops	0.6656 gflops

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	Ring Bus
Length	168 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	no data
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB or 1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	54.4 GB/s	no data

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	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.4
OpenGL	3.2	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2
CUDA	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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

UHD Graphics 750 4.49
+243%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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 240 507

UHD Graphics 750 1733
+242%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5
−200%

12−14

+200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −100%	12−14 +100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −1300%	27−30 +1300%
Hitman 3	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −114%	30−33 +114%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −113%	16−18 +113%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −33.3%	40−45 +33.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −100%	12−14 +100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −1300%	27−30 +1300%
Hitman 3	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −114%	30−33 +114%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −113%	16−18 +113%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −54.5%	16−18 +54.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −33.3%	40−45 +33.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −100%	12−14 +100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −1300%	27−30 +1300%
Hitman 3	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −114%	30−33 +114%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −113%	16−18 +113%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −54.5%	16−18 +54.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −33.3%	40−45 +33.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−500%

12−14
+500%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	4−5
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Hitman 3	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 −367%	27−30 +367%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−100%

8−9
+100%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

3−4

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	2−3
Far Cry 5	0−1	2−3

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−66.7%

5−6
+66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Battlefield 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Battlefield 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics 750 is 1300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

UHD Graphics 750 is ahead in 43 tests (74%)
there's a draw in 15 tests (26%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.31	4.49
Recency	17 November 2009	30 March 2021
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	69 Watt	15 Watt

UHD Graphics 750 has a 242.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 360% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 750 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 UHD Graphics 750 is a notebook one.

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