Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8500GT Almost Dead... 9800GT or GT240?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 23, 2010 6:54:46 PM

Hello, first time poster here. My 8500GT is on the brink of death and I was looking at either the BFG 9800GT or Galaxy GT240 512MB Card. I really like that the GT240 consumes less power, produces less heat, and has an HDMI. I am not a heavy PC gamer, but want to play the Mass Effect series and a few other titles. I even considered the GT250, but none of the local stores like Fry's or CompUSA carry them in-store and I needed to get this card this weekend.

Is the GT240 going to be sufficient?

My system specs:

Intel Core 2 Due E3400 1.8Ghz
3 GB RAM DDR3
300W PSU (I was thinking of upgrading to a 500-550W)
a b Î Nvidia
July 23, 2010 7:02:51 PM

GT240 is an ok card. It's supposed to be essentially a 9800GTX+ so it'll be a step up from a regular 9800GT.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
July 23, 2010 7:24:44 PM

No, its not. The GT240 sits between the 9600GT and the 9800GT. Its big advantage is what you already pointed out, and the fact it supports DX10.1. If you can afford it the 9800GT will provide a better gaming experience with its more power.

I can't tell you if the GT240 will be enough, we don't know what resolution you're playing at.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b Î Nvidia
July 23, 2010 7:27:42 PM

4745454b said:
No, its not. The GT240 sits between the 9600GT and the 9800GT. Its big advantage is what you already pointed out, and the fact it supports DX10.1. If you can afford it the 9800GT will provide a better gaming experience with its more power.

I can't tell you if the GT240 will be enough, we don't know what resolution you're playing at.


Hey you're right. I guess I had bad info.

This is a good source
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=309225
m
0
l
July 23, 2010 7:34:58 PM

4745454b said:
No, its not. The GT240 sits between the 9600GT and the 9800GT. Its big advantage is what you already pointed out, and the fact it supports DX10.1. If you can afford it the 9800GT will provide a better gaming experience with its more power.

I can't tell you if the GT240 will be enough, we don't know what resolution you're playing at.


I am currently at 1600x1400......I think I can go up on resolution too, which I haven't messed around with.

wolfram23 said:
Hey you're right. I guess I had bad info.

This is a good source
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=309225


Thanks for the URL.

I have a 300W PSU, should I also consider going up to a 500-550W even if I keep the 240 which wants 300W?

Even though the 9800GT is an older card, does it matter going with an older design vs. a newer card like the GT240?
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
July 23, 2010 7:42:54 PM

For gaming older design wouldn't matter much in this case. The 9800GT flat out has more power then any of the GT2xx cards. The GT cards might be newer, but they simply don't have enough power. If you wanted a media card to watch things on your TV that would be different as the newer cards might have better support for this like bit streaming the audio and support for newer codecs, but this doesn't apply in your case.

As for the PSU, Watts means nothing these days. I would run some 300W PSU over some 500W PSUs. What matters is how much power is available on the 12V rail(s) and who made it/whats inside of the unit. Its one of those quality over quantity things.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
July 23, 2010 7:47:08 PM

Why not the HD5670, seems like the great comprise between the two, 9800GT performance, GT240 power usage/heat and HDMI.
m
0
l
July 23, 2010 8:07:11 PM

Yeah, 5670 sounds better, GT 240 is essentially a 8800GTS, comparable with the perfomance of a 9600GT but 5670 has DX11, that makes it really futureproof...
m
0
l
July 26, 2010 1:43:08 PM

I returned the 9800GT after the fan on it was sounding like the days we would put baseball cards on our bike tires to give it that ticking sound. I bought the GTS 250 512 mb card instead since they did not have the 1GB. I really like the card so far and it runs fairly quiet for the most part..........but this thing does get rather hot.
m
0
l
July 26, 2010 2:16:12 PM

I subscribe for the 5670 too !
m
0
l
July 27, 2010 2:56:32 PM

4745454b said:
For gaming older design wouldn't matter much in this case. The 9800GT flat out has more power then any of the GT2xx cards. The GT cards might be newer, but they simply don't have enough power. If you wanted a media card to watch things on your TV that would be different as the newer cards might have better support for this like bit streaming the audio and support for newer codecs, but this doesn't apply in your case.

As for the PSU, Watts means nothing these days. I would run some 300W PSU over some 500W PSUs. What matters is how much power is available on the 12V rail(s) and who made it/whats inside of the unit. Its one of those quality over quantity things.


Are you saying that the 9800GT is more powerful than the GTS 250?
m
0
l
a c 171 Î Nvidia
July 27, 2010 5:25:58 PM

gearsx8 said:
Are you saying that the 9800GT is more powerful than the GTS 250?

I hope he isn't because it's not , the GTS250 is a 9800GTX+ in all but name and a 9800GT is between it and a GT240.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
July 27, 2010 7:48:55 PM

If I had meant the GTS250 I would have said GTS2xx instead of just GT2xx. There was no error on my part. The 9800GT is faster then the GT220 and GT240. It uses a bit more power, and doesn't support DX10.1, but most would rather have the extra power.
m
0
l
July 28, 2010 2:13:42 AM

4745454b said:
If I had meant the GTS250 I would have said GTS2xx instead of just GT2xx. There was no error on my part. The 9800GT is faster then the GT220 and GT240. It uses a bit more power, and doesn't support DX10.1, but most would rather have the extra power.


Sorry, it was my fault as I misread your post.

Will it help if I upgrade my processor to a E7400 2.93 Ghz which is the highest my mobo will go? I can run Crysis at medium settings, will a faster processor help any even though the GPU probably matters the most.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
July 28, 2010 4:04:43 AM

A CPU faster then the E3400 will help a lot for the games you listed. Any heavy game will have issues running on such a low CPU. You might not need to upgrade the CPU however as you can get close with just overclocking what you already have. If you don't know how to do it you might be better off just buying the faster CPU. Same if you have an OEM machine. (HP, Dell, Compaq, etc) If you study up about how to OC and come back here if you need help you can probably get that chip up to around 3.6GHz or so. Should be enough to handle bigger games.
m
0
l
July 28, 2010 5:09:39 AM

4745454b said:
A CPU faster then the E3400 will help a lot for the games you listed. Any heavy game will have issues running on such a low CPU. You might not need to upgrade the CPU however as you can get close with just overclocking what you already have. If you don't know how to do it you might be better off just buying the faster CPU. Same if you have an OEM machine. (HP, Dell, Compaq, etc) If you study up about how to OC and come back here if you need help you can probably get that chip up to around 3.6GHz or so. Should be enough to handle bigger games.


Thanks for the quick reply. I am concerned about OC so I would probably not try it and just grab a new CPU. Do you think it might also help to have my system RAM at 4GB instead of the 3?
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
July 28, 2010 6:28:50 AM

Thats a much smaller difference. When gaming 3-4GBs seems to be the sweet spot. Not sure how your 3GBs is arranged, but even in single channel mode it shouldn't be much slower then 4GBs in dual channel mode. You'll see much bigger returns by getting a faster CPU and GPU then upgrading to 4GBS. Even if you have a 64bit copy of windows.
m
0
l
July 28, 2010 8:34:16 AM

9800gt is good for gaming....
m
0
l
!