GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon 520

Place in the ranking	876	1025
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	2.82	1.31
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Banks	GT215
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	18 April 2017 (7 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	320	96
Core clock speed	1030 MHz	550 MHz
Number of transistors	690 million	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	69 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105C C
Texture fill rate	20.60	17.60
Floating-point processing power	0.6592 TFLOPS	0.2573 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	20	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 x8	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	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	2 GB	512 MB or 1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1125 MHz	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz
Memory bandwidth	36 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	No outputs	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 (11_1)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.2
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	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.

Radeon 520 2.04
+55.7%

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.

Radeon 520 787
+55.5%

GT 240 506

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.

Radeon 520 5266
+0.9%

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 HD

−92.3%

25
+92.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

3.20

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Hitman 3	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +28.6%	14−16 −28.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +25%	8−9 −25%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +9.1%	30−35 −9.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Hitman 3	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +28.6%	14−16 −28.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +25%	8−9 −25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18 +63.6%	10−12 −63.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +9.1%	30−35 −9.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Hitman 3	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +28.6%	14−16 −28.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +25%	8−9 −25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6 −83.3%	10−12 +83.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +9.1%	30−35 −9.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+100%

2−3

−100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+25%

4−5

−25%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

This is how Radeon 520 and GT 240 compete in popular games:

GT 240 is 92% 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 Radeon 520 is 300% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 240 is 83% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Radeon 520 is ahead in 38 tests (79%)
GT 240 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
there's a draw in 9 tests (19%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.04	1.31
Recency	18 April 2017	17 November 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB or 1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	69 Watt

Radeon 520 has a 55.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 38% lower power consumption.

GT 240, on the other hand, has a 25500% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Radeon 520 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon 520 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.