Radeon HD 8240 vs GeForce GTX 260M

Place in the ranking	1107	1188
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.04	2.95
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code name	G92	Kalindi
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	3 March 2009 (15 years ago)	1 November 2013 (11 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	112	128
Core clock speed	550 MHz	400 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	1,178 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	30.80	3.200
Floating-point processing power	0.308 TFLOPS	0.1024 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	462	no data
ROPs	16	4
TMUs	56	8

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	large	no data
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	IGP
Width	no data	IGP
SLI options	2-way	-
MXM Type	MXM 3.0 Type-B	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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	Up to 950 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	61 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	DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	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_0)	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	4.0	6.3
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
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.

GTX 260M 0.98
+53.1%

HD 8240 0.64

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.

GTX 260M 379
+54.1%

HD 8240 246

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.

GTX 260M 4901
+256%

HD 8240 1377

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

29
+61.1%

18−20

−61.1%

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

Full HD
High Preset

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

Full HD
Ultra Preset

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

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

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