GeForce GT 240 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 with GeForce GT 240, including specs and performance data.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 735% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 425 | 1030 |
| Place by popularity | 26 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.30 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | GT215 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 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.
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 | 96 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 69 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105C C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.2573 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 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 | no data | 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 | DDR4 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 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 | no data | 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 | DirectX 12_1 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.2 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 200−210
+700%
| 25
−700%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.20 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 55−60
+314%
|
14−16
−314%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 55−60
+314%
|
14−16
−314%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+155%
|
10−12
−155%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+155%
|
10−12
−155%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+880%
|
5−6
−880%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+860%
|
5−6
−860%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 and GT 240 compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 700% 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 Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 3450% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 is ahead in 24 tests (50%)
- there's a draw in 24 tests (50%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.94 | 1.31 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 17 November 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 40 nm |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 has a 735.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
