NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 vs NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 and NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT 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, GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 240
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- Around 50% higher pipelines: 96 vs 64
- Around 24% better floating-point performance: 257.28 gflops vs 208 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 65 nm
- Around 39% lower typical power consumption: 69 Watt vs 96 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 512 MB or 1 GB vs 512 MB
- Around 89% higher memory clock speed: 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz vs 900 MHz
- Around 5% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 501 vs 477
- Around 5% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 46 vs 44
- 15.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1979 vs 127
- 15.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1979 vs 127
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 17 November 2009 vs 21 February 2008 |
| Pipelines | 96 vs 64 |
| Floating-point performance | 257.28 gflops vs 208 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 69 Watt vs 96 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 512 MB or 1 GB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz vs 900 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 501 vs 477 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 46 vs 44 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1979 vs 127 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1979 vs 127 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT
- Around 21% higher core clock speed: 1625 MHz vs 1340 MHz
- Around 18% higher texture fill rate: 20.8 billion / sec vs 17.6 GTexel / s
- 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3161 vs 1385
- 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3161 vs 1385
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1625 MHz vs 1340 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 20.8 billion / sec vs 17.6 GTexel / s |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3161 vs 1385 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3161 vs 1385 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 240
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 | NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 501 | 477 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 46 | 44 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9236 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1979 | 127 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1979 | 127 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1385 | 3161 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1385 | 3161 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 0.465 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 | NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Tesla |
| Code name | GT215 | G94 |
| Launch date | 17 November 2009 | 21 February 2008 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | $179 |
| Place in performance rating | 1394 | 1587 |
| Price now | $37.99 | $39.99 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 22.27 | 23.72 |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 1340 MHz | 1625 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 96 | 64 |
| Floating-point performance | 257.28 gflops | 208 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105C C | 105 °C |
| Pipelines | 96 | 64 |
| Texture fill rate | 17.6 GTexel / s | 20.8 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 69 Watt | 96 Watt |
| Transistor count | 727 million | 505 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | S / PDIF |
| Display Connectors | DVIVGAHDMI, 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, HDTVTwo Dual Link DVI |
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 6.6" (168mm) (16.8 cm) | 9" (22.9 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 6-pin |
| SLI options | 2-way | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 10.1 | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.2 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB or 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.4 GB / s | 57.6 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1700 MHz GDDR5, 1000 MHz GDDR3, 900 MHz DDR3 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 with others
NVIDIAGeForce GT 240 vs
NVIDIAION LE
NVIDIAGeForce GT 240 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 260
NVIDIAGeForce GT 240 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 130 OEM
NVIDIAGeForce GT 240 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 415M
NVIDIAGeForce GT 240 vs
AMDFirePro M8900
NVIDIAGeForce GT 240 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6230
