GeForce GT 240M vs Iris Graphics 550

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Graphics 550 and GeForce GT 240M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Iris Graphics 550
2015
15 Watt
3.70
+573%

Iris Graphics 550 outperforms GT 240M by a whopping 573% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7111215
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency16.911.64
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameSkylake GT3eGT216
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)15 June 2009 (15 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 cores38448
Core clock speed300 MHz550 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate48.008.800
Floating-point processing power0.768 TFLOPS0.1162 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data174
ROPs68
TMUs4816

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfaceRing BusPCIe 2.0 x16

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared1 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem SharedUp to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidthno data25.6 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentSingle Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMIVGA
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

Power managementno data8.0
Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.44.1
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL3.01.1
Vulkan1.3N/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.

Iris Graphics 550 3.70
+573%
GT 240M 0.55

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.

Iris Graphics 550 1428
+570%
GT 240M 213

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.

Iris Graphics 550 9761
+312%
GT 240M 2372

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 HD18
+50%
12
−50%
1440p28
+600%
4−5
−600%
4K50
+614%
7−8
−614%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Battlefield 5 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Hitman 3 7
+40%
5−6
−40%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+127%
10−12
−127%
Metro Exodus 6−7 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Battlefield 5 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Hitman 3 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+127%
10−12
−127%
Metro Exodus 6−7 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12
+100%
6−7
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+90%
10−11
−90%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Hitman 3 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+127%
10−12
−127%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 15
+150%
6−7
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 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
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

This is how Iris Graphics 550 and GT 240M compete in popular games:

  • Iris Graphics 550 is 50% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Graphics 550 is 600% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Graphics 550 is 614% faster in 4K

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Graphics 550 is 2100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Iris Graphics 550 surpassed GT 240M in all 35 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.70 0.55
Recency 1 September 2015 15 June 2009
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 23 Watt

Iris Graphics 550 has a 572.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 53.3% lower power consumption.

The Iris Graphics 550 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M in performance tests.


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.


Intel Iris Graphics 550
Iris Graphics 550
NVIDIA GeForce GT 240M
GeForce GT 240M

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.


3.3 53 votes

Rate Iris Graphics 550 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 83 votes

Rate GeForce GT 240M 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.