Notebookcheck Logo

NVIDIA GeForce GT 240M

NVIDIA GeForce GT 240M

The Nividia GeForce GT 240M is a DirectX 10.1 graphics adapter for notebooks based on the GT216 core. It is the successor of the GT 130M and technically a higher clocked GT 230M. Because of the 48 shader cores, it should perform  noticeably better than the GT 130M and due to the 40nm production process the power consumption should stay the same. The GT240M was later succeeded by the very similar GT330M (slightly higher clocked).

The core of the GT230M is internally called GT216 and according to Nvidia based on the current high-end desktop architecture (GTX 200 series). Furthermore, Nvidia has improved the micro-architecture for further power saving and performance increases. Therefore, the performance per shader unit should be slightly improved compared to the previous generation.

As the GeForce 9700M GTS, the GT 240M features 48 stream processors that do the work of the former dedicated pixel- and vertex-shaders. The unified shaders of Nvidia are 1-dimensional (AMD has 5-dimensional shaders which leads to the higher number of shaders).

The GeForce GT240M also supports CUDA, DirectX Compute, OpenCL, and PhysiX to use the shaders for other tasks than rendering images (like encoding videos, calculating the physics of a game or mathematical tasks). For these special tasks, the GPU can be noticeably faster than current CPUs.

The mobile graphics card has a built in video decoder called PureVideo HD with VP4. The Video Processor 4 (VP4) supports the full decoding of H.264, VC-1, and now also MPEG-4 ASP (e.g. DivX or XviD). MPEG-1 still wont be supported, but the decoding of this codec is quite trivial on a CPU.

In conjunction with a chipset from Nvidia with integrated graphics (e.g. 9400M), the GT 240M supports Hybrid-SLI (HybridPower and GeForceBoost). HybridPower is a technique to choose between the integrated and dedicated graphics core, if performance or battery runtime is needed. This works only in Windows Vista (and possibly Windows 7). Up to now the user has to use a tool to switch between the GPUs. Later Nvidia wants to switch automatically in the drivers. GeForceBoost is not supported by the GT 240M because the SLI combination would not perform better.

The performance of the middle class gpu GT 240M should be somewhere between the GeForce GT130M and the 9700M GTS and above the GT 230. Demanding DirectX 10 games from 2009 like Crysis should run fluently in medium details. Older or less demanding games should run in high detail settings and high resolutions. See below for detailed gaming benchmarks with the GT240M.

Depending on the the used type of graphics memory (GDDR2, GDDR3 or perhaps even DDR2/DDR3) the performance may differ noticeably.

The power consumption of the mobile graphics card is - like the GT 130M and GT 230M - 23 Watt (TDP). Furthermore, according to Nvidia, the new improved core does only need half of the power in Idle mode.

GeForce GT 200M Series

GeForce GT 240M 48 @ 0.55 GHz128 Bit @ 800 MHz
GeForce GT 230M compare 48 @ 0.5 GHz128 Bit @ 800 MHz
GeForce GT 220M compare 32 @ 0.5 GHz128 Bit @ 800 MHz
CodenameN10P-GS
ArchitectureGT2xx
Pipelines48 - unified
Core Speed550 MHz
Shader Speed1210 MHz
Memory Speed800 MHz
Memory Bus Width128 Bit
Memory TypeDDR3, GDDR2, GDDR3
Max. Amount of Memory1024 MB
Shared Memoryno
APIDirectX 10.1, Shader 4.1
Power Consumption23 Watt
Transistor Count486 Million
technology40 nm
FeaturesDirectX Compute Support (Windows 7), CUDA, OpenCL, HybridPower, PhysX
Notebook Sizemedium sized
Date of Announcement15.06.2009
Information174 Gigaflops, 100 mm2 DIE
Link to Manufacturer Pagehttp://www.nvidia.com/object/product_gef...

Benchmarks

3DMark Vantage
3DM Vant. Perf. total +
3DMark Vantage - 3DM Vant. Perf. total
min: 2348     avg: 2429     median: 2371.5 (1%)     max: 2624 Points
+ 4 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
3DM Vant. Perf. GPU no PhysX +
3DMark Vantage - 3DM Vant. Perf. GPU no PhysX
min: 2066     avg: 2092     median: 2080 (1%)     max: 2146 Points
+ 5 benchmarks and specifications   - Hide comparison chart
3DMark 2001SE - 3DMark 2001 - Standard
min: 21243     avg: 23708     median: 22708 (24%)     max: 28631 Points
+ 10 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
3DMark 03 - 3DMark 03 - Standard
min: 18038     avg: 18262     median: 18122 (9%)     max: 18657 Points
+ 9 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
3DMark 05 - 3DMark 05 - Standard
min: 11275     avg: 11811     median: 11577.5 (13%)     max: 13004 Points
+ 10 benchmarks and specifications   - Hide comparison chart
3DMark 06 3DMark 06 - Standard 1280x1024 +
3DMark 06
min: 5857     avg: 6077     median: 5952 (8%)     max: 6320 Points
+ 5 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
3DMark 06 - Standard 1280x800 +
3DMark 06
6567 Points (9%)
+ 1 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
3DMark 06 - Standard 1280x768 +
3DMark 06
6676 Points (9%)
+ 1 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
3DMark 06 - Standard 1280x720 +
3DMark 06
min: 6989     avg: 7136     median: 7052 (10%)     max: 7367 Points
+ 3 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - 3dsmax
5.9 points (12%)
+ 1 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - Catia
5.7 points (12%)
+ 1 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - EnSight
11.9 points (25%)
+ 1 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - Maya
19.3 points (10%)
+ 1 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - Pro/Engeneer
7.5 points (15%)
+ 1 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SolidWorks
8.3 points (12%)
+ 1 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - UGS Teamcenter
2.8 points (7%)
+ 1 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - UGS NX
4 points (8%)
+ 1 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
Windows 7 Experience Index - Win7 Gaming graphics
6.4 Points (81%)
+ 4 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
Windows 7 Experience Index - Win7 Graphics
6.4 Points (81%)
+ 4 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
Windows Vista Experience Index - Windows Vista Leistungsindex - Grafik (Spiele)
5.6 Points (82%)
+ 1 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
Windows Vista Experience Index - Windows Vista Leistungsindex - Grafik
5.9 Points (87%)
+ 1 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
Cinebench R10 Cinebench R10 Shading (32bit) +
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Shading (32bit)
min: 2922     avg: 3509     median: 3466.5 (2%)     max: 4435 points
+ 10 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
Cinebench R11.5 Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64 Bit +
Cinebench R11.5 - Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64 Bit
16 fps (6%)
+ 1 benchmarks and specifications   + Show comparison chart
- Range of benchmark values for this graphics card
- Average benchmark values for this graphics card
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance

Game Benchmarks

The following benchmarks stem from our benchmarks of review laptops. The performance depends on the used graphics memory, clock rate, processor, system settings, drivers, and operating systems. So the results don't have to be representative for all laptops with this GPU. For detailed information on the benchmark results, click on the fps number.

Risen

Risen

2009
low 800x600
52.7 60.4 61 ~ 58 fps    + Compare
med. 1024x768
21.1 25 25.6 ~ 24 fps    + Compare
high 1366x768
16 16.7 18.1 ~ 17 fps    + Compare
ultra 1920x1080
12  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings low.
Colin McRae: DIRT 2

Colin McRae: DIRT 2

2009
low 800x600
44  fps    + Compare
med. 1024x768
42  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings med..
Anno 1404

Anno 1404

2009
low 1024x768
79.5  fps    + Compare
ultra 1280x1024
21.8  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings low.
F.E.A.R. 2

F.E.A.R. 2

2009
low 800x600
118.5  fps    + Compare
med. 1024x768
61  fps    + Compare
high 1280x1024
39  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings high.
Left 4 Dead

Left 4 Dead

2008
low 640x480
88 94.2 ~ 91 fps    + Compare
high 1024x768
57 66 ~ 62 fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings high.
Far Cry 2

Far Cry 2

2008
low 640x480
80.7  fps    + Compare
high 1024x768
34.7  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings low.
Racedriver: GRID

Racedriver: GRID

2008
low 800x600
56.1  fps    + Compare
med. 1024x768
40.4  fps    + Compare
high 1280x1024
29.7  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings med..
Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare

Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare

2007
low 800x600
143.7  fps    + Compare
med. 1024x768
66.5  fps    + Compare
high 1280x1024
37.6  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings high.
Crysis - GPU Benchmark

Crysis - GPU Benchmark

2007
low 1024x768
49.6 50 50.1 53 55.8 72 76 ~ 58 fps    + Compare
med. 1024x768
32.3 32.3 32.6 32.8 33 36 37 ~ 34 fps    + Compare
high 1024x768
20 20 20.4 20.5 20.6 21 21.3 ~ 21 fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings low.
Additional Benchmarks
High 800x600
24
25
26.8
26.7
26.8
Low 0xAF 0xAA 800x600
52
72
60.4
57.9
55.6
Med 0xAF 0xAA 800x600
35
39
40.8
39.4
36.9
Low 1366x768
45
45.8
44.5
Medium 1366x768
28
25.7
25.6
High 1366x768
16
16
16
Very High 1024x768
11.8
High 1600x900
12.8
Med 1600x900
21
Low 1600x900
37.4
Crysis - CPU Benchmark

Crysis - CPU Benchmark

2007
low 1024x768
38 39 51.9 54.7 55.7 57.5 74 ~ 53 fps    + Compare
med. 1024x768
19 20 30.5 30.9 32.4 34 37 ~ 29 fps    + Compare
high 1024x768
15 16 17 18.2 18.4 18.7 20 ~ 18 fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings low.
Additional Benchmarks
Med 0xAF 0xAA 800x600
20
23
37.6
37.2
33.1
Low 0xAF 0xAA 800x600
40
44
65.3
61.3
67.6
High 0xAF 0xAA 800x600
18
18
24.1
24.1
24.4
Low 1366x768
33
46.3
45.7
Medium 1366x768
17
25.2
25.1
High 1366x768
13
15.1
15.1
Very High 1024x768
10.8
High 1600x900
12.3
Med 1600x900
20.9
Low 1600x900
38.9
World in Conflict - Benchmark

World in Conflict - Benchmark

2007
med. 1024x768
14 54 ~ 34 fps    + Compare
high 1024x768
11 28 ~ 20 fps    + Compare
» The benchmarks indicate that the game is not playable in the tested settings.
Call of Juarez Benchmark

Call of Juarez Benchmark

2006
high 1024x768
35.6  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings high.
Half Life 2 - Lost Coast Benchmark

Half Life 2 - Lost Coast Benchmark

2005
high 1024x768
126  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings high.
F.E.A.R.

F.E.A.R.

2005
low 640x480
390  fps    + Compare
med. 800x600
184  fps    + Compare
high 1024x768
69  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings high.
Counter-Strike Source

Counter-Strike Source

2004
high 1024x768
204.6  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings high.
Quake 3 Arena - Timedemo

Quake 3 Arena - Timedemo

1999
high 1024x768
551  fps    + Compare
» With all tested laptops playable in detail settings high.

For more games that might be playable and a list of all games and graphics cards visit our Gaming List

Add one or more devices and compare

In the following list you can select (and also search for) devices that should be added to the comparison. You can select more than one device.

restrict list: