GeForce GT 240 vs Quadro M3000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M3000M with GeForce GT 240, including specs and performance data.

M3000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
14.63
+1017%

M3000M outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 1017% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3591030
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency13.371.30
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGM204GT215
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date18 August 2015 (9 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 cores1,02496
Core clock speed1050 MHz550 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million727 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt69 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105C C
Texture fill rate67.2017.60
Floating-point processing power2.15 TFLOPS0.2573 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs6432

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Heightno data4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB or 1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s54.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputsDVIVGAHDMI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Display Port1.2no data
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1211.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.44.1
OpenGL4.53.2
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA5.2+

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.

M3000M 14.63
+1017%
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.

M3000M 5636
+1018%
GT 240 504

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.

M3000M 27405
+425%
GT 240 5221

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 HD61
+144%
25
−144%
4K27
+1250%
2−3
−1250%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.20
4Kno data40.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+450%
6−7
−450%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+1050%
4−5
−1050%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+625%
4−5
−625%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+3200%
1−2
−3200%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+1200%
3−4
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+4550%
2−3
−4550%
Hitman 3 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+421%
14−16
−421%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+1850%
2−3
−1850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+488%
8−9
−488%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+130%
30−35
−130%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+450%
6−7
−450%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+1050%
4−5
−1050%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+625%
4−5
−625%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+3200%
1−2
−3200%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+1200%
3−4
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+4550%
2−3
−4550%
Hitman 3 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+421%
14−16
−421%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+1850%
2−3
−1850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+488%
8−9
−488%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 90
+718%
10−12
−718%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+130%
30−35
−130%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+450%
6−7
−450%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+625%
4−5
−625%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+3200%
1−2
−3200%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+4550%
2−3
−4550%
Hitman 3 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+421%
14−16
−421%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+488%
8−9
−488%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+100%
10−12
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+130%
30−35
−130%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+1850%
2−3
−1850%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+1133%
6−7
−1133%
Hitman 3 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+480%
5−6
−480%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+1367%
6−7
−1367%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12 0−1
Hitman 3 10−11 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+1083%
6−7
−1083%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%

This is how M3000M and GT 240 compete in popular games:

  • M3000M is 144% faster in 1080p
  • M3000M is 1250% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the M3000M is 4550% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, M3000M surpassed GT 240 in all 48 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.63 1.31
Recency 18 August 2015 17 November 2009
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB or 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 69 Watt

M3000M has a 1016.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 240, on the other hand, has a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 8.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M3000M is a mobile workstation 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.

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.


NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
Quadro M3000M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 240
GeForce GT 240

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.


3.8 358 votes

Rate Quadro M3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 916 votes

Rate GeForce GT 240 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.