GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon R9 280X

Place in the ranking	352	1034
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.51	0.01
Power efficiency	4.18	1.31
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Tahiti	GT215
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	17 November 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$299	$80

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 280X has 55000% 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	2048	96
Core clock speed	no data	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,313 million	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	69 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105C C
Texture fill rate	128.0	17.60
Floating-point processing power	4.096 TFLOPS	0.2573 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	128	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	PCIe 3.0	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	275 mm	168 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin	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	3 GB	512 MB or 1 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	DVIVGAHDMI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
DisplayPort support	+	-
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.

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
TressFX	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
UVD	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.2
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	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.

R9 280X 15.18
+1059%

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.

R9 280X 5837
+1060%

GT 240 503

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.

R9 280X 33045
+533%

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	64 +156%	25 −156%
4K	33 +1550%	2−3 −1550%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.67 −46%	3.20 +46%
4K	9.06 +341%	40.00 −341%

GT 240 has 46% lower cost per frame in 1080p
R9 280X has 341% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +200%	9−10 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +650%	4−5 −650%
Elden Ring	45−50 +4500%	1−2 −4500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +4800%	1−2 −4800%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +200%	9−10 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +650%	4−5 −650%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +675%	8−9 −675%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +1267%	3−4 −1267%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +429%	7−8 −429%
Valorant	60−65 +1120%	5−6 −1120%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +4800%	1−2 −4800%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +200%	9−10 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +650%	4−5 −650%
Dota 2	36 +3500%	1−2 −3500%
Elden Ring	45−50 +4500%	1−2 −4500%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +450%	10−11 −450%
Fortnite	80−85 +1580%	5−6 −1580%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +675%	8−9 −675%
Grand Theft Auto V	54 +5300%	1−2 −5300%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +1267%	3−4 −1267%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +679%	14−16 −679%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +429%	7−8 −429%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +643%	7−8 −643%
Valorant	60−65 +1120%	5−6 −1120%
World of Tanks	190−200 +596%	27−30 −596%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +4800%	1−2 −4800%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +200%	9−10 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +650%	4−5 −650%
Dota 2	137 +13600%	1−2 −13600%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +450%	10−11 −450%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +675%	8−9 −675%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +679%	14−16 −679%
Valorant	60−65 +1120%	5−6 −1120%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Elden Ring	24−27 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +1613%	8−9 −1613%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14	0−1
World of Tanks	100−110 +1414%	7−8 −1414%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +1450%	2−3 −1450%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +640%	5−6 −640%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +1133%	3−4 −1133%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Valorant	35−40 +533%	6−7 −533%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12	0−1
Dota 2	24−27 +62.5%	16−18 −62.5%
Elden Ring	10−11	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +73.3%	14−16 −73.3%
Metro Exodus	10−11	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +1025%	4−5 −1025%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +73.3%	14−16 −73.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Dota 2	68 +325%	16−18 −325%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Fortnite	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Valorant	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%

This is how R9 280X and GT 240 compete in popular games:

R9 280X is 156% faster in 1080p
R9 280X is 1550% faster in 4K

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

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 280X is 13600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, R9 280X surpassed GT 240 in all 44 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.18	1.31
Recency	8 October 2013	17 November 2009
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	512 MB or 1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	69 Watt