GeForce GT 240 vs GT 650M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 650M with GeForce GT 240, including specs and performance data.

GT 650M
2012
2 GB DDR3\GDDR5, 45 Watt
3.12
+138%

GT 650M outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 138% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7561030
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency4.751.30
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGK107GT215
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years ago)17 November 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$80

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 cores38496
Core clock speedUp to 900 MHz550 MHz
Boost clock speed950 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,270 million727 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt69 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105C C
Texture fill rate30.4017.60
Floating-point processing power0.7296 TFLOPS0.2573 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs3232

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 Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0PCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Heightno data4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
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 typeDDR3\GDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB512 MB or 1 GB
Memory bus width128bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 80.0 GB/s54.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputsDVIVGAHDMI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI++
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolutionUp to 2048x15362048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray+-
Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.53.2
OpenCL1.11.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/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 650M 3.12
+138%
GT 240 1.31

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 650M 1202
+138%
GT 240 504

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 650M 9682
+85.4%
GT 240 5221

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:

900p31
+158%
12−14
−158%
Full HD30
+20%
25
−20%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.20

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+21.2%
30−35
−21.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+21.2%
30−35
−21.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+21.2%
30−35
−21.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
+217%
6−7
−217%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

This is how GT 650M and GT 240 compete in popular games:

  • GT 650M is 158% faster in 900p
  • GT 650M is 20% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 650M is 750% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 650M is ahead in 47 tests (98%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.12 1.31
Recency 22 March 2012 17 November 2009
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 512 MB or 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 69 Watt

GT 650M has a 138.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 53.3% lower power consumption.

GT 240, on the other hand, has a 25500% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The GeForce GT 650M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 650M is a notebook card while GeForce GT 240 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 650M
GeForce GT 650M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 240
GeForce GT 240

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.


3.8 465 votes

Rate GeForce GT 650M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 916 votes

Rate GeForce GT 240 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.