GeForce GT 240 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) with GeForce GT 240, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
2017
15 Watt
4.51
+244%

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 244% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6601030
Place by popularity39not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency20.601.30
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameVega Raven RidgeGT215
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date26 October 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 cores51296
Core clock speed300 MHz550 MHz
Boost clock speed1200 MHzno data
Number of transistors9,800 million727 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt69 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105C C
Texture fill rate57.6017.60
Floating-point processing power1.843 TFLOPS0.2573 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs3232

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 supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfaceIGPPCIe 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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared512 MB or 1 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data54.4 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
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.44.1
OpenGL4.63.2
OpenCL2.11.1
Vulkan1.2N/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 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 4.51
+244%
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 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 1737
+245%
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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 10294
+97.2%
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 HD18
−38.9%
25
+38.9%
4K8
+300%
2−3
−300%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.20
4Kno data40.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 9
+125%
4−5
−125%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 15
+150%
6−7
−150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10
+400%
2−3
−400%
Battlefield 5 18
+260%
5−6
−260%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10
+150%
4−5
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+125%
4−5
−125%
Far Cry 5 18
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Far Cry New Dawn 18
+500%
3−4
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 58
+2800%
2−3
−2800%
Hitman 3 9
+50%
6−7
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%
Metro Exodus 22
+267%
6−7
−267%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16
+700%
2−3
−700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 19
+138%
8−9
−138%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65
+97%
30−35
−97%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30
+400%
6−7
−400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Battlefield 5 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10
+150%
4−5
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 10
+900%
1−2
−900%
Far Cry New Dawn 13
+333%
3−4
−333%
Forza Horizon 4 52
+2500%
2−3
−2500%
Hitman 3 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%
Metro Exodus 17
+325%
4−5
−325%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10
+400%
2−3
−400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
+100%
8−9
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+182%
10−12
−182%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55
+66.7%
30−35
−66.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7
+75%
4−5
−75%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 7
+600%
1−2
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 23
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Hitman 3 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 15
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14
+75%
8−9
−75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8
−37.5%
10−12
+37.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+36.4%
30−35
−36.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10
+400%
2−3
−400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Hitman 3 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+367%
6−7
−367%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%

4K
High Preset

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

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4
+300%
1−2
−300%
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 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9
+350%
2−3
−350%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and GT 240 compete in popular games:

  • GT 240 is 39% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 300% 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 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 2800% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 240 is 38% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is ahead in 47 tests (98%)
  • GT 240 is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.51 1.31
Recency 26 October 2017 17 November 2009
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 69 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has a 244.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 360% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 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.

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.


AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
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.


3.5 1454 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 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.