GeForce GT 240 vs GTX 1050
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1050 and GeForce GT 240, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1050 outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 898% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 400 | 1043 |
| Place by popularity | 13 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 11.41 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 11.96 | 1.30 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | GT215 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 October 2016 (8 years ago) | 17 November 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | $80 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1050 has 114000% better value for money than GT 240.
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 | 640 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1290 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1392 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | 58.20 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.862 TFLOPS | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 | 32 |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 168 mm |
| Height | 4.38" (11.1 cm) | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 300 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| SLI | - | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 54.4 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 Connectors | DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | DVIVGAHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | + | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | 2.2 | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
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.
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.
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 | 44
+76%
| 25
−76%
|
| 1440p | 23
+1050%
| 2−3
−1050%
|
| 4K | 23
+1050%
| 2−3
−1050%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.48
+29.2%
| 3.20
−29.2%
|
| 1440p | 4.74
+744%
| 40.00
−744%
|
| 4K | 4.74
+744%
| 40.00
−744%
|
- GTX 1050 has 29% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1050 has 744% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1050 has 744% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 56
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+2267%
|
3−4
−2267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+643%
|
7−8
−643%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+389%
|
9−10
−389%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+224%
|
30−35
−224%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 43
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250
+793%
|
27−30
−793%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Dota 2 | 124
+675%
|
16−18
−675%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| Fortnite | 53
+1667%
|
3−4
−1667%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 49
+600%
|
7−8
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 53
+5200%
|
1−2
−5200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+389%
|
9−10
−389%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+533%
|
6−7
−533%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+224%
|
30−35
−224%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+600%
|
16−18
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 34
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+389%
|
9−10
−389%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Valorant | 28
−17.9%
|
30−35
+17.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 42
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 90−95
+1214%
|
7−8
−1214%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+1038%
|
8−9
−1038%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+3200%
|
4−5
−3200%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24
+60%
|
14−16
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+1000%
|
6−7
−1000%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 47
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
This is how GTX 1050 and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 is 76% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1050 is 1050% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1050 is 1050% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1050 is 5500% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 240 is 33% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1050 is ahead in 47 tests (96%)
- GT 240 is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.08 | 1.31 |
| Recency | 25 October 2016 | 17 November 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 69 Watt |
GTX 1050 has a 898.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
GT 240, on the other hand, has a 25500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 8.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1050 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
