AMD ROG Ally Extreme vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 240M
Comparative analysis of AMD ROG Ally Extreme and NVIDIA GeForce GT 240M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD ROG Ally Extreme
- Videocard is newer: launch date 13 year(s) 11 month(s) later
- Around 24% higher core clock speed: 1500 MHz vs 1210 MHz
- 14727.3x more texture fill rate: 129.6 GTexel/s vs 8.8 GTexel / s
- 16x more pipelines: 768 vs 48
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 4 nm vs 40 nm
- 16x more maximum memory size: 16 GB vs 1 GB
Launch date | 13 Jun 2023 vs 15 June 2009 |
Core clock speed | 1500 MHz vs 1210 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 129.6 GTexel/s vs 8.8 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 768 vs 48 |
Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm vs 40 nm |
Maximum memory size | 16 GB vs 1 GB |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 240M
- Around 30% lower typical power consumption: 23 Watt vs 30 Watt
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 23 Watt vs 30 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD ROG Ally Extreme
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 240M
Name | AMD ROG Ally Extreme | NVIDIA GeForce GT 240M |
---|---|---|
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 468 | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 213 | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 49 | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 6433 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1860 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1860 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD ROG Ally Extreme | NVIDIA GeForce GT 240M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
Code name | Phoenix | GT216 |
Launch date | 13 Jun 2023 | 15 June 2009 |
Place in performance rating | 1567 | 1564 |
Type | Laptop | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 2700 MHz | |
Compute units | 12 | |
Core clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1210 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 768 | 48 |
Pixel fill rate | 86.40 GPixel/s | |
Texture fill rate | 129.6 GTexel/s | 8.8 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt | 23 Watt |
Transistor count | 25390 million | 486 million |
CUDA cores | 48 | |
Floating-point performance | 116.16 gflops | |
Gigaflops | 174 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 1x USB Type-C | Single Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMIVGA |
HDMI | ||
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Height | 21 mm, 0.8 inches | |
Length | 280 mm, 11 inches | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
Width | 111 mm, 4.4 inches | |
Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | |
Laptop size | medium sized | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 10.1 |
OpenCL | 2.1 | |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
Shader Model | 6.7 | |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 51.20 GB/s | 25.6 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 64 bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz, 6.4 Gbps effective | |
Memory type | LPDDR5 | DDR3, GDDR2, GDDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
CUDA | ||
HybridPower | ||
Power management | 8.0 |