Radeon HD 6450 vs GeForce GT 240M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 240M with Radeon HD 6450, including specs and performance data.

GT 240M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.55
+7.8%

GT 240M outperforms HD 6450 by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12131228
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.671.97
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameGT216Caicos
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date15 June 2009 (15 years ago)7 April 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$55

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 cores48160
Core clock speed550 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data750 MHz
Number of transistors486 million370 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate8.8005.000
Floating-point processing power0.1162 TFLOPS0.2 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 2.0PCIe 2.0 x8
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s25.6 GB/s
Memory bandwidthno data8.5-12.8 GB/x (DDR3) or 25.6-28.8 GB/s (GDDR5)
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 HDMI, 1x VGA
Multi monitor support+no data
Eyefinity-+
Number of Eyefinity displaysno data4
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
DisplayPort support-+

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire-+
Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)DirectX® 11
Shader Model4.15.0
OpenGL2.14.4
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/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
+7.8%
HD 6450 0.51

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
+8.1%
HD 6450 197

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
+20%
10−12
−20%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data5.50

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
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
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
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
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
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%

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
+20%
5−6
−20%
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 HD 6450 compete in popular games:

  • GT 240M is 20% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.55 0.51
Recency 15 June 2009 7 April 2011
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 30 Watt

GT 240M has a 7.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 30.4% lower power consumption.

HD 6450, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 240M and Radeon HD 6450.

Be aware that GeForce GT 240M is a notebook card while Radeon HD 6450 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
AMD Radeon HD 6450
Radeon HD 6450

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
3 514 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6450 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.