GeForce GT 240 vs GeForce GT 425M
GeForce GT 240
Popular choices:
GeForce GT 425M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce GT 240 is positioned at rank 197 and the GeForce GT 425M is on rank 159, so the GeForce GT 425M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 240
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 425M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GT 425M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GT 240.
| Insight | GeForce GT 240 | GeForce GT 425M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GT 425M offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GT 425M holds the technical lead. Priced at $25 (vs $80), it costs 69% less, resulting in a 222.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GT 240 | GeForce GT 425M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+222.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($80) | ✅More affordable ($25) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GT 240 and GeForce GT 425M
GeForce GT 240
The GeForce GT 240 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 29 2014. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 993 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 64W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 495 points. Launch price was $89.
GeForce GT 425M
The GeForce GT 425M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 1 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 549 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 45W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 499 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GT 240 scores 495 and the GeForce GT 425M reaches 499 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GT 240 is built on Kepler while the GeForce GT 425M uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 240) vs 384 (GeForce GT 425M). Raw compute: 0.7626 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 240) vs 0.4216 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 425M).
| Feature | GeForce GT 240 | GeForce GT 425M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 495 | 499 |
| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7626 TFLOPS+81% | 0.4216 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GT 240 | GeForce GT 425M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 1 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | GeForce GT 240 | GeForce GT 425M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.1 (GeForce GT 240) vs 11.0 (GeForce GT 425M). Vulkan: N/A vs None. OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.0. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 1.
| Feature | GeForce GT 240 | GeForce GT 425M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.1 | 11.0+9% |
| Vulkan | N/A | None |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.0+21% |
| Max Displays | 2+100% | 1 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce GT 240) vs No (GeForce GT 425M). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP4) vs PureVideo HD VP4. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GT 240) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP (GeForce GT 425M).
| Feature | GeForce GT 240 | GeForce GT 425M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | No |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD (VP4) | PureVideo HD VP4 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GT 240 draws 64W versus the GeForce GT 425M's 45W — a 34.9% difference. The GeForce GT 425M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GT 240) vs 350W (GeForce GT 425M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 168mm vs 0mm, occupying 1 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70 vs 75°C.
| Feature | GeForce GT 240 | GeForce GT 425M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 64W | 45W-30% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 168mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70-7% | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 7.7 | 11.1+44% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GT 425M costs 68.8% less ($55 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 6.2 (GeForce GT 240) vs 20.0 (GeForce GT 425M) — the GeForce GT 425M offers 222.6% better value. The GeForce GT 240 is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2013).
| Feature | GeForce GT 240 | GeForce GT 425M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $80 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $80 | $25-69% |
| Performance per Dollar | 6.2 | 20.0+223% |
| Codename | GK107 | GK107 |
| Release | May 29 2014 | April 1 2013 |
| Ranking | #777 | #857 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GT 240 and GeForce GT 425M
