Intel HD Graphics 4400 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 240
Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 4400 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 4400
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 9 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 22 nm vs 40 nm
- 3.5x lower typical power consumption: 20 Watt vs 69 Watt
- Around 5% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 524 vs 501
- 6x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 275 vs 46
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3044 vs 1385
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3044 vs 1385
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 3 September 2013 vs 17 November 2009 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm vs 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt vs 69 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 524 vs 501 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 275 vs 46 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3044 vs 1385 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3044 vs 1385 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 240
- 3.8x more core clock speed: 1340 MHz vs 350 MHz
- 3.8x more texture fill rate: 17.6 GTexel / s vs 4.6 GTexel / s
- 4.8x more pipelines: 96 vs 20
- 5.6x better floating-point performance: 257.28 gflops vs 46 gflops
- 4.3x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 9236 vs 2143
- Around 43% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1979 vs 1381
- Around 43% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1979 vs 1381
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1340 MHz vs 350 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 17.6 GTexel / s vs 4.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 96 vs 20 |
| Floating-point performance | 257.28 gflops vs 46 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9236 vs 2143 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1979 vs 1381 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1979 vs 1381 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 4400
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 4400 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 524 | 501 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 275 | 46 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2143 | 9236 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 7.844 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 154.696 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.958 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 9.084 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 8.335 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 817 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1381 | 1979 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3044 | 1385 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 817 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1381 | 1979 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3044 | 1385 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 152 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel HD Graphics 4400 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 7.5 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | Haswell GT2 | GT215 |
| Launch date | 3 September 2013 | 17 November 2009 |
| Place in performance rating | 1421 | 1394 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | |
| Price now | $37.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 22.27 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 1340 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 46 gflops | 257.28 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 20 | 96 |
| Texture fill rate | 4.6 GTexel / s | 17.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt | 69 Watt |
| Transistor count | 392 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 | 12.0 (11_1) | 10.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 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 4400 with others
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 555M
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
AMDRadeon HD 7560D
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8350G
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
AMDFirePro S4000X
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
NVIDIAQuadro K620M
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
NVIDIAGRID M40
