Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

XFX GT240XYHFC vs Galaxy 24GFH8HX2PUG

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 4, 2010 2:22:19 AM

I'm debating between: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite... & http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/ite...

Specs are all the same except for the brands: Galaxy vs XFX. Any recommendations? I want a somewhat quite card.

Note just found out: Galaxy requires 300watt; XFX requires 350watt.
a c 236 U Graphics card
July 4, 2010 2:56:29 AM

both cards are fine. xfx has a lifetime warranty if that helps although i do find their fans slightly louder then others but not by much.

both cards should be fairly quiet.

as far as DDR5 goes, would you rather have DDR3 and have a slower card?
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

a c 189 U Graphics card
July 4, 2010 12:15:13 PM

128bit mem + ddr5 performance is about the same as 256bit mem + ddr3 performance...
Don't worry about that, GT240 is a good card for an average use. :) 
Share
July 5, 2010 3:07:10 AM

Best answer selected by ptsome110.
m
0
l
July 5, 2010 3:08:35 AM

wa1 said:
128bit mem + ddr5 performance is about the same as 256bit mem + ddr3 performance...
Don't worry about that, GT240 is a good card for an average use. :) 


This helped me answer another question: should I get http://www.frys.com/product/6159169 instead. It is GTS 250 512MB 256 bit DDR3 but requires 400 watt; whereas the GT 240 requires 300watt. If the performance are similar then its better to go with 240 so i wont have to upgrade my power supply.
m
0
l
a c 189 U Graphics card
July 5, 2010 3:50:23 AM

GTS 250 is require 6pin power connector from PSU, so yes, it's better than GT240.
If you don't want to upgrade PSU then stay with GT240.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
July 5, 2010 4:08:14 AM

You should also consider the HD5670. It is low power like the GT 240 but faster and DX11 compatible.
m
0
l
!