GeForce GT 240 vs Iris Plus Graphics 650

Place in the ranking	656	1034
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	20.97	1.31
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Kaby Lake GT3e	GT215
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	3 January 2017 (8 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 cores	384	96
Core clock speed	300 MHz	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm++	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	69 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105C C
Texture fill rate	55.20	17.60
Floating-point processing power	0.8832 TFLOPS	0.2573 TFLOPS
ROPs	6	8
TMUs	48	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	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	Ring Bus	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	168 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	32 GB	512 MB or 1 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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	Portable Device Dependent	DVIVGAHDMI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
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.

Quick Sync

no data

API 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	4.6	3.2
OpenCL	3.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.3	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. 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 Plus Graphics 650 4.57
+249%

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 650 1757
+249%

GT 240 503

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

−19%

25
+19%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

3.20

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Elden Ring	10−12	0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +138%	8−9 −138%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Valorant	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Dota 2	15 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Elden Ring	10−12	0−1
Far Cry 5	21−24 +130%	10−11 −130%
Fortnite	27−30 +440%	5−6 −440%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +138%	8−9 −138%
Grand Theft Auto V	8 +700%	1−2 −700%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	48 +243%	14−16 −243%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +114%	7−8 −114%
Valorant	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
World of Tanks	75−80 +171%	27−30 −171%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Dota 2	25 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +130%	10−11 −130%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +138%	8−9 −138%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +179%	14−16 −179%
Valorant	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	3−4	0−1
Elden Ring	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Grand Theft Auto V	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +288%	8−9 −288%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4	0−1
World of Tanks	30−35 +371%	7−8 −371%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Valorant	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Elden Ring	2−3	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Fortnite	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4	0−1
Valorant	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 650 and GT 240 compete in popular games:

GT 240 is 19% faster in 1080p

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

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 650 is 2400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Iris Plus Graphics 650 is ahead in 40 tests (95%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.57	1.31
Recency	3 January 2017	17 November 2009
Maximum RAM amount	32 GB	512 MB or 1 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	69 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 650 has a 248.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 360% lower power consumption.

GT 240, on the other hand, has a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount.

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

Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 650 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.