GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon RX Vega 11

Place in the ranking	604	1025
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	10.86	1.32
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Raven	GT215
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	10 May 2018 (6 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	704	96
Core clock speed	300 MHz	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	1251 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,940 million	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	69 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105C C
Texture fill rate	55.04	17.60
Floating-point processing power	1.761 TFLOPS	0.2573 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	44	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	IGP	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	168 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	IGP	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	System Shared	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	512 MB or 1 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	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	Motherboard 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 (6.4)	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.2
OpenCL	2.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.3	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.

RX Vega 11 5.47
+318%

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.

RX Vega 11 2112
+317%

GT 240 506

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	25 +0%	25 +0%
1440p	6 +500%	1−2 −500%
4K	11 +450%	2−3 −450%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	3.20
1440p	no data	80.00
4K	no data	40.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

9−10
+125%

4−5

−125%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20 +233%	6−7 −233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Battlefield 5	23 +360%	5−6 −360%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Far Cry 5	22 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Far Cry New Dawn	25 +733%	3−4 −733%
Forza Horizon 4	89 +4350%	2−3 −4350%
Hitman 3	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +143%	14−16 −143%
Metro Exodus	33 +371%	7−8 −371%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	38 +375%	8−9 −375%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +45.5%	30−35 −45.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35 +483%	6−7 −483%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Battlefield 5	14−16 +400%	3−4 −400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Far Cry 5	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Far Cry New Dawn	19 +533%	3−4 −533%
Forza Horizon 4	78 +3800%	2−3 −3800%
Hitman 3	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +143%	14−16 −143%
Metro Exodus	12 +500%	2−3 −500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	17 +113%	8−9 −113%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +72.7%	10−12 −72.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +45.5%	30−35 −45.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	11 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Far Cry 5	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Forza Horizon 4	29 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Hitman 3	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +143%	14−16 −143%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	15 +87.5%	8−9 −87.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10 −10%	10−12 +10%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +45.5%	30−35 −45.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16
+650%

2−3

−650%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Hitman 3	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Metro Exodus	4−5	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +483%	6−7 −483%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11
+150%

4−5

−150%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5	0−1
Hitman 3	2−3	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5 +400%	1−2 −400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	12 +500%	2−3 −500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+100%

3−4

−100%

This is how RX Vega 11 and GT 240 compete in popular games:

A tie in 1080p
RX Vega 11 is 500% faster in 1440p
RX Vega 11 is 450% 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 RX Vega 11 is 4350% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 240 is 10% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega 11 is ahead in 47 tests (98%)
GT 240 is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.47	1.31
Recency	10 May 2018	17 November 2009
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	69 Watt

RX Vega 11 has a 317.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 97.1% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 11 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.