Radeon R4 (Beema) vs GeForce GT 240M

Place in the ranking	1213	1098
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.67	no data
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	GCN 1.1 (2014)
GPU code name	GT216	Beema
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	15 June 2009 (15 years ago)	29 April 2014 (10 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 cores	48	128
Core clock speed	550 MHz	800 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	no data
Texture fill rate	8.800	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.1162 TFLOPS	no data
Gigaflops	174	no data
ROPs	8	no data
TMUs	16	no data

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	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	GDDR3	no data
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	no data
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 Connectors	Single Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMIVGA	no data
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 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model	4.1	no data
OpenGL	2.1	no data
OpenCL	1.1	no data
Vulkan	N/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

R4 (Beema) 1.03
+87.3%

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

R4 (Beema) 399
+87.3%

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

R4 (Beema) 2506
+5.7%

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

12
+50%

−50%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −6.7%	30−35 +6.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −10%	10−12 +10%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −6.7%	30−35 +6.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −10%	10−12 +10%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −6.7%	30−35 +6.7%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	1−2
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%