GeForce GT 240 vs Quadro P600

Place in the ranking	500	1034
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.62	0.01
Power efficiency	14.83	1.31
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GP107	GT215
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	7 February 2017 (7 years ago)	17 November 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$178	$80

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P600 has 66100% better value for money than GT 240.

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	1430 MHz	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	1620 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,300 million	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	69 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105C C
Texture fill rate	38.88	17.60
Floating-point processing power	1.244 TFLOPS	0.2573 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	24	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	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	145 mm	168 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB or 1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1252 MHz	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80.13 GB/s	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

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	6.7	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.2
OpenCL	3.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.3	N/A
CUDA	6.1	+

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.

Quadro P600 8.62
+558%

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.

Quadro P600 3313
+559%

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

36
+44%

−44%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.94
−54.5%

3.20

+54.5%

GT 240 has 55% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +88.9%	9−10 −88.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Elden Ring	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +2700%	1−2 −2700%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +88.9%	9−10 −88.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +325%	8−9 −325%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +667%	3−4 −667%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +229%	7−8 −229%
Valorant	30−35 +675%	4−5 −675%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +2700%	1−2 −2700%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +88.9%	9−10 −88.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Dota 2	27 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Elden Ring	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +270%	10−11 −270%
Fortnite	50−55 +920%	5−6 −920%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +325%	8−9 −325%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +667%	3−4 −667%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	95 +579%	14−16 −579%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +229%	7−8 −229%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +271%	7−8 −271%
Valorant	30−35 +675%	4−5 −675%
World of Tanks	120−130 +357%	27−30 −357%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +2700%	1−2 −2700%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +88.9%	9−10 −88.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Dota 2	72 +7100%	1−2 −7100%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +270%	10−11 −270%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +325%	8−9 −325%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +386%	14−16 −386%
Valorant	30−35 +675%	4−5 −675%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Elden Ring	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +425%	8−9 −425%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8	0−1
World of Tanks	60−65 +786%	7−8 −786%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +260%	5−6 −260%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Valorant	21−24 +267%	6−7 −267%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Dota 2	18−20 +18.8%	16−18 −18.8%
Elden Ring	5−6	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +26.7%	14−16 −26.7%
Metro Exodus	4−5	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +525%	4−5 −525%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +26.7%	14−16 −26.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Dota 2	18−20 +18.8%	16−18 −18.8%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Fortnite	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Valorant	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%

This is how Quadro P600 and GT 240 compete in popular games:

Quadro P600 is 44% 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 Quadro P600 is 7100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Quadro P600 surpassed GT 240 in all 44 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.62	1.31
Recency	7 February 2017	17 November 2009
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB or 1 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	69 Watt

Quadro P600 has a 558% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 72.5% lower power consumption.

GT 240, on the other hand, has a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Quadro P600 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P600 is a workstation graphics 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.