GeForce GT 630 vs GT 240M

Place in the ranking	1213	924
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.08
Power efficiency	1.67	1.89
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GT216	GF108
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	15 June 2009 (15 years ago)	15 May 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$99.99

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 cores	48	96
Core clock speed	550 MHz	810 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	8.800	12.96
Floating-point processing power	0.1162 TFLOPS	0.311 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	174	no data
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	16	16

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 size	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	GDDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	28.8 GB/s
Shared memory	-	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	Single Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMIVGA	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management

8.0

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.1	5.1
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	+	2.1

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

GT 630 1.76
+220%

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

GT 630 677
+218%

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

−192%

35−40
+192%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

2.86

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−200%

9−10
+200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Hitman 3	5−6 −220%	16−18 +220%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −218%	35−40 +218%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −200%	18−20 +200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −217%	95−100 +217%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Hitman 3	5−6 −220%	16−18 +220%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −218%	35−40 +218%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −200%	18−20 +200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −200%	30−33 +200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −217%	95−100 +217%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
Hitman 3	5−6 −220%	16−18 +220%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −218%	35−40 +218%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −200%	18−20 +200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −200%	30−33 +200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −217%	95−100 +217%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−200%

3−4
+200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Hitman 3	6−7 −200%	18−20 +200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%