GeForce GTS 160M vs GT 240M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 240M and GeForce GTS 160M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 240M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.55

GTS 160M outperforms GT 240M by a whopping 220% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1213923
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.672.04
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGT216G94
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 June 2009 (15 years ago)3 March 2009 (15 years ago)

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 cores4864
Core clock speed550 MHz600 MHz
Number of transistors486 million505 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate8.80019.20
Floating-point processing power0.1162 TFLOPS0.192 TFLOPS
Gigaflops174288
ROPs816
TMUs1632

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 sizedlarge
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0PCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
SLI options-2-way
MXM Typeno dataMXM 3.0 Type-B

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 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHzUp to 800 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s51 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 DVIHDMIVGAVGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVI
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x15362048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.08.0

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++

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
GTS 160M 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
GTS 160M 678
+218%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GT 240M 2372
GTS 160M 3965
+67.2%

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
−192%
35−40
+192%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Hitman 3 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−45.5%
16−18
+45.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−13.3%
30−35
+13.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Hitman 3 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−45.5%
16−18
+45.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−13.3%
30−35
+13.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Hitman 3 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−45.5%
16−18
+45.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−13.3%
30−35
+13.3%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 1−2
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 1−2

4K
Epic Preset

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

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

This is how GT 240M and GTS 160M compete in popular games:

  • GTS 160M is 192% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTS 160M is 800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTS 160M is ahead in 34 tests (69%)
  • there's a draw in 15 tests (31%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.55 1.76
Recency 15 June 2009 3 March 2009
Chip lithography 40 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 60 Watt

GT 240M has an age advantage of 3 months, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 160.9% lower power consumption.

GTS 160M, on the other hand, has a 220% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce GTS 160M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M in performance tests.


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 GTS 160M
GeForce GTS 160M

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.


3.2 74 votes

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

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

Rate GeForce GTS 160M 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.