GeForce 8500 GT vs GT 240M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 240M with GeForce 8500 GT, including specs and performance data.

GT 240M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.55
+48.6%

GT 240M outperforms 8500 GT by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12151270
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency1.640.85
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGT216G86
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date15 June 2009 (15 years ago)17 April 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$129

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 cores4816
Core clock speed550 MHz459 MHz
Number of transistors486 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate8.8003.672
Floating-point processing power0.1162 TFLOPS0.02938 TFLOPS
Gigaflops174no data
ROPs84
TMUs168

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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
SLI options-+

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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB256 MB
Standard memory config per GPUno data256 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz400 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s12.8 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 ConnectorsSingle Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMIVGA1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.14.0
OpenGL2.12.1
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/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 240M 0.55
+48.6%
8500 GT 0.37

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 240M 213
+47.9%
8500 GT 144

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 HD12
+50%
8−9
−50%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data16.13

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Hitman 3 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

This is how GT 240M and 8500 GT compete in popular games:

  • GT 240M is 50% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.55 0.37
Recency 15 June 2009 17 April 2007
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 30 Watt

GT 240M has a 48.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 30.4% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 240M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8500 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 240M is a notebook card while GeForce 8500 GT is a desktop 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 240M
GeForce GT 240M
NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT
GeForce 8500 GT

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 84 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 353 votes

Rate GeForce 8500 GT 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.