GeForce GT 240 vs UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)

UHD Graphics 710 Mobile UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) UHD Graphics 750 (Alder Lake) UHD Graphics 770 Mobile
VS
GT 220 OEM GT 240 GT 320 OEM GT 330 OEM GT 340 OEM

Aggregate performance score

We've compared UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) with GeForce GT 240, including specs and performance data.

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
2021
15 Watt
13.91
+978%

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) outperforms GT 240 by a whopping 978% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
GT 240 GT 240

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3801043
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency64.371.30
Architectureno dataTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameRocket Lake GT1GT215
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date30 March 2021 (3 years ago)17 November 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$80

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 coresno data96
Core clock speedno data550 MHz
Number of transistorsno data727 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt69 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105C C
Texture fill rateno data17.60
Floating-point processing powerno data0.2573 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data32

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
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Heightno data4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data512 MB or 1 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1700 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 dataDVIVGAHDMI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXno data11.1 (10_1)
Shader Modelno data4.1
OpenGLno data3.2
OpenCLno data1.1
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.

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) 13.91
+978%
GT 240 1.29

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.

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) 1768
GT 240 5221
+195%

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 HD13
−92.3%
25
+92.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.20

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
+725%
4−5
−725%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+200%
8−9
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
+725%
4−5
−725%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+5600%
1−2
−5600%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+200%
8−9
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Far Cry 5 9 0−1
Fortnite 75−80
+2433%
3−4
−2433%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+700%
7−8
−700%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+1067%
3−4
−1067%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+433%
9−10
−433%
Valorant 110−120
+242%
30−35
−242%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
+725%
4−5
−725%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+5600%
1−2
−5600%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+200%
8−9
−200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+554%
27−30
−554%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Dota 2 27
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Far Cry 5 8 0−1
Fortnite 75−80
+2433%
3−4
−2433%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+700%
7−8
−700%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+1067%
3−4
−1067%
Grand Theft Auto V 6
+500%
1−2
−500%
Metro Exodus 7
+600%
1−2
−600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+433%
9−10
−433%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+483%
6−7
−483%
Valorant 110−120
+242%
30−35
−242%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+5600%
1−2
−5600%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+200%
8−9
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Dota 2 25
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Far Cry 5 8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+700%
7−8
−700%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+1067%
3−4
−1067%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+433%
9−10
−433%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+483%
6−7
−483%
Valorant 110−120
+242%
30−35
−242%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+2433%
3−4
−2433%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+1314%
7−8
−1314%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+1350%
8−9
−1350%
Valorant 130−140
+3375%
4−5
−3375%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+1100%
3−4
−1100%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+2800%
1−2
−2800%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+967%
3−4
−967%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 27−30
+1350%
2−3
−1350%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+66.7%
14−16
−66.7%
Metro Exodus 9−10 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Valorant 70−75
+1083%
6−7
−1083%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Dota 2 45−50
+4600%
1−2
−4600%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%

This is how UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) 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 Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) is 5600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) surpassed GT 240 in all 49 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 13.91 1.29
Recency 30 March 2021 17 November 2009
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 69 Watt

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) has a 978.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 360% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) is a notebook card while GeForce GT 240 is a desktop one.

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.

Intel UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 240
GeForce GT 240
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
vs
GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
GT 240 GeForce GT 240
vs
HD 7660D Radeon HD 7660D
UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
vs
RX Vega M GL / 870 Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870
PRO W7900 AMD PRO W7900
vs
RTX 4060 4060
RX 6500 6500
vs
RTX 3060 8 GB 3060 8 GB
HD Graphics 500 HD Graphics 500
vs
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Quadro K2000 Quadro K2000
vs
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
HD Graphics 4600 HD Graphics 4600
vs
UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
RTX 4080 Mobile GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile
vs
RTX 2080 Ti 12 GB GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 12 GB
RTX 5000 Ada Generation Mobile RTX 5000 Ada Generation Mobile
vs
RTX 4090 Mobile 4090 Mobile
RTX 4070 Ti 4070 Ti
vs
RX 7600 7600
HD Graphics 12EU HD Graphics 12EU
vs
RX 6550S 6550S
RTX 6000 Ada Generation RTX 6000 Ada Generation
vs
Apple M2 Pro 19-Core GPU 19-Core GPU

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.8 115 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 941 vote

Rate GeForce GT 240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) or GeForce GT 240, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.