Intel HD Graphics 4000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 240
Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 4000 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 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: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 4000
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 5 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 22 nm vs 40 nm
- Around 53% lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 69 Watt
- 4.2x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 194 vs 46
- Around 73% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2392 vs 1385
- Around 73% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2392 vs 1385
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 14 May 2012 vs 17 November 2009 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm vs 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt vs 69 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 vs 46 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2392 vs 1385 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2392 vs 1385 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 240
- 2.1x more core clock speed: 1340 MHz vs 650 MHz
- 4.2x more texture fill rate: 17.6 GTexel / s vs 4.2 GTexel / s
- 6x more pipelines: 96 vs 16
- 7.7x better floating-point performance: 257.28 gflops vs 33.6 gflops
- Around 44% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 501 vs 347
- 17.2x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 9236 vs 538
- Around 33% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1979 vs 1492
- Around 33% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1979 vs 1492
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1340 MHz vs 650 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 17.6 GTexel / s vs 4.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 96 vs 16 |
| Floating-point performance | 257.28 gflops vs 33.6 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 501 vs 347 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9236 vs 538 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1979 vs 1492 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1979 vs 1492 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 240
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | Intel HD Graphics 4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 347 | 501 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 | 46 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 538 | 9236 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.712 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 155.638 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.931 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 7.36 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 12.009 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 754 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1492 | 1979 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2392 | 1385 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 754 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1492 | 1979 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2392 | 1385 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel HD Graphics 4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 7.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | Ivy Bridge GT2 | GT215 |
| Launch date | 14 May 2012 | 17 November 2009 |
| Place in performance rating | 1501 | 1394 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | |
| Price now | $37.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 22.27 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 1340 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 33.6 gflops | 257.28 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 16 | 96 |
| Texture fill rate | 4.2 GTexel / s | 17.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,200 million | 727 million |
| CUDA cores | 96 | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105C C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | DVIVGAHDMI, 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
| Length | 6.6" (168mm) (16.8 cm) | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 11.1 (11_0) | 10.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.0 | 3.2 |
Memory |
||
| Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Shared memory | 1 | |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.4 GB / s | |
| Memory clock speed | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare Intel HD Graphics 4000 with others
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 550M
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 540M
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
NVIDIAQuadro 3000M
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 620M
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 7480D
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition
