Tesla M40 vs GeForce GT 240M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 240M with Tesla M40, including specs and performance data.

GT 240M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.55

Tesla M40 outperforms GT 240M by a whopping 4831% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1208200
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.667.51
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameGT216GM200
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date15 June 2009 (15 years ago)10 November 2015 (8 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 cores483072
Core clock speed550 MHz948 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1112 MHz
Number of transistors486 million8,000 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate8.800213.5
Floating-point processing power0.1162 TFLOPS6.832 TFLOPS
Gigaflops174no data
ROPs896
TMUs16192

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 3.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data8-pin EPS

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 GB12 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s288.4 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 DVIHDMIVGANo outputs
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)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.7
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+5.2

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
Tesla M40 27.12
+4831%

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
Tesla M40 10465
+4813%

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
−4483%
550−600
+4483%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4567%
140−150
+4567%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−4650%
190−200
+4650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−4567%
140−150
+4567%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4567%
140−150
+4567%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−4400%
45−50
+4400%
Hitman 3 5−6
−4700%
240−250
+4700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−4445%
500−550
+4445%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−4733%
290−300
+4733%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−4733%
1450−1500
+4733%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−4650%
190−200
+4650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−4567%
140−150
+4567%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4567%
140−150
+4567%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−4400%
45−50
+4400%
Hitman 3 5−6
−4700%
240−250
+4700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−4445%
500−550
+4445%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−4733%
290−300
+4733%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−4400%
450−500
+4400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−4733%
1450−1500
+4733%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−4650%
190−200
+4650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−4567%
140−150
+4567%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4567%
140−150
+4567%
Hitman 3 5−6
−4700%
240−250
+4700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−4445%
500−550
+4445%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−4733%
290−300
+4733%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−4400%
450−500
+4400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−4733%
1450−1500
+4733%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−4400%
45−50
+4400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−4400%
45−50
+4400%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−4400%
45−50
+4400%
Hitman 3 6−7
−4733%
290−300
+4733%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−4567%
140−150
+4567%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−4400%
45−50
+4400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−4567%
140−150
+4567%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−4400%
45−50
+4400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−4650%
95−100
+4650%

This is how GT 240M and Tesla M40 compete in popular games:

  • Tesla M40 is 4483% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.55 27.12
Recency 15 June 2009 10 November 2015
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 12 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 250 Watt

GT 240M has 987% lower power consumption.

Tesla M40, on the other hand, has a 4830.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Tesla M40 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 240M is a notebook card while Tesla M40 is a workstation 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 Tesla M40
Tesla M40

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
4.3 87 votes

Rate Tesla M40 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.