Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

NVidia 9800GT vs GT240 (mostly video editing)

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 26, 2011 9:26:42 PM

I currently have an NVidia 8600GTS graphics card. This one is about three years old, and I'd like to upgrade.

I wish to stick with a single-slot PCI Express card. I do much more video editing than gaming; hardly any gaming at all. I'm deciding between the NVidia 9800GT or the GT 240. According to the specifications (and several reviews), the 9800GT is better. But according to Nvidia's product descriptions, the GT240 is geared more toward video editing.

Again, I don't do much gaming, but I would like a significant upgrade without ripping myself off. Can anyone help guide me between the two? Thanks! :) 
a c 172 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 26, 2011 9:36:39 PM

The GT240 is more or less something for you as it is single slot and requires no power connector but for the same price you can get a decent quality 9800gt. The 9800gt as more power to go with it but uses more and puts out more heat. I got three G92 cards (1 8800gt and two 9800gt) they are great cards and even by today's standards you are not going to find another card for the price that performs better. $50-75 retail $20-50 second hand.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 11:21:24 PM

I'd REALLY recommend getting the Radeon HD 5670 over the GT240... and a G92 over both of them...

I'd say that a 9800GT would serve you well, if you wanted to give up some of the bells and whistles of a newer card. I really doubt you'll need them, though.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5670,2533...
There's no way I'd ever get a 240 over that 5670. It just doesn't make sense.
The 9800GT is in an entirely different performance class, if I remember right, so I'd definitely go with it if you can find it for a decent price...
Score
0
Related resources
a c 172 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 26, 2011 11:44:42 PM

Both the 5670 and GT240 are terribly overpriced cards. I wouldn't buy them due to cost. I rather avoid them and shell out extra cash for something better or go with a used G80/G92 or a cheap R770.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 27, 2011 3:23:05 AM

^+1 agreed what about a used 2 series might be able to grab a gtx 260 (if psu and ebay permits) for around $80 or less, which would be a step up from a 9800gt and probably a bit better with video editing... I would assume
Score
0
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 27, 2011 5:54:44 AM

The 9800GT beats the GT 240 with it's faster GPU but what you said was correct, the GT 240 is better for video editing, it can run on a 300w PSU while the 9800gt requires 400w, in addition it supports OpenGL 3.2 compared to the 9800 which only supports 2.1 as well as DirectX 10.1 support.
These features are worth the slower GPU.

BUT jjb8675309 and nforce4max are very correct, they are too overpriced, the GT 240 is $90.

It would be much better to buy a used powerful card for the same price, no difference between used and new if the used does the same.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 27, 2011 12:22:26 PM

word, get a second hand gtx 260, or even better a gtx 275/285 if you can find one cheap.... the 295s seem to go for at least 150 or more so I would shoot for the latter if you wanna stay under 100
Score
0
a c 172 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 27, 2011 11:40:16 PM

Quote:
The 9800GT beats the GT 240 with it's faster GPU but what you said was correct, the GT 240 is better for video editing, it can run on a 300w PSU while the 9800gt requires 400w, in addition it supports OpenGL 3.2 compared to the 9800 which only supports 2.1 as well as DirectX 10.1 support.
These features are worth the slower GPU.

BUT jjb8675309 and nforce4max are very correct, they are too overpriced, the GT 240 is $90.

It would be much better to buy a used powerful card for the same price, no difference between used and new if the used does the same.


You can run a standard 65nm 9800gt off a quality 300w psu and have seen it done. The actual use of a 65nm 9800gt typically is around 85w~ while overclocked is 105w. The 55nm uses a Lot less, 60w stock for a 55nm version while overclocked it a little less than the 65nm and runs at a lower voltage on the core. Idle for a 65nm g92 gt is 30w while the 55nm is less but more than 20w.
Score
0
January 27, 2011 11:46:04 PM

Thanks for all the helpful responses! I know some of you suggested other video cards, but my choices are based on what's available to me locally. The specific cards I'm choosing from are the 9800GT and the GT 240. There are cards above the 240, but I'm only interested in single-slot.

I'm still left a tad confused as to what to do, considering that I hardly play games. All I know is that, on my current 8600 GTS, video playback skips frequently, and video editing isn't as smooth as it could be either.

I also know that one card requires a power connector, and the other is 9" long. So based on specifically these two cards, what would be a better value for my needs? Thanks again. :) 
Score
0
a c 172 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 28, 2011 1:44:57 AM

What do you want best performance for the dollar you are spending or something that is more or less easier to install that doesn't have any significant needs?
Score
0
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 28, 2011 7:59:02 AM

nforce4max said:
You can run a standard 65nm 9800gt off a quality 300w psu and have seen it done. The actual use of a 65nm 9800gt typically is around 85w~ while overclocked is 105w. The 55nm uses a Lot less, 60w stock for a 55nm version while overclocked it a little less than the 65nm and runs at a lower voltage on the core. Idle for a 65nm g92 gt is 30w while the 55nm is less but more than 20w.



I think that's the low powered "green edition" that you are talking about, I can't even find it on newegg, I was going to buy one.

I had a choice between the GT 240 and 9800GT for gaming and video editing if you would look at previous threads I started, I asked almost the same question as this guy and at the end got a GT 240 because it was available in near by shops and I couldn't find the 9800GT low powered.

I have a 300w PSU with 19A on the 12v.

ALL of you guys read this


The GT 240 has more features though the 9800GT's GPU is not much faster, the Passmark Benchmark of:
GT 240 is 780
9800GT is 914

That is like around 14% of more power for the 9800 GT, AND the GT 240 runs cool and can be overclocked so that it's almost equivalent to the 9800GT. You don't have to but you can easily overclock it with the software included on the disk about 50-75MHZ on the core, shader and memory and you get extremely close processing power of a 9800GT.
With that you will also get the video editing features exclusive to the GT 240 such as the Pure Video HD which is better on the 240 and newer CUDA and PhysX. The GT 240 was intended for the exact same use, on NVIDIA's website it has three examples of applications of the GT 240, 2 on video editing and photo editing and 1 about gaming.
The 9800GT has 2 on gaming and one on 3D apps and CUDA- not to mention that the GT 240 has almost the same amount of CUDA cores, they are also improved from the older ones on the 9800GT.

The GT 240 is the better choice for video editing and the difference in the gaming performance between the 9800GT and GT 240 is very little, in games maybe 5-10fps extra which can be achieved on the GT 240 with an easy effortless overclock,

I run Fallout: New Vegas on high settings at 1680 by 1050 by default despite the fact the I'm running in PCI-E 1.0 at half the bandwidth and with a bottlenecking PD 925, so even if you are gaming with out video editing the GT 240 would still be a good choice although for gaming alone I'd probably get the 9800GT.

So GT 240 is an excellent choice.

Anyone else wanna argue/feedback/troll/agree/comment/suggest/correct me?
Score
0
a c 172 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 28, 2011 12:27:51 PM

Quote:
I think that's the low powered "green edition" that you are talking about, I can't even find it on newegg, I was going to buy one.

I had a choice between the GT 240 and 9800GT for gaming and video editing if you would look at previous threads I started, I asked almost the same question as this guy and at the end got a GT 240 because it was available in near by shops and I couldn't find the 9800GT low powered.

I have a 300w PSU with 19A on the 12v.

ALL of you guys read this


The GT 240 has more features though the 9800GT's GPU is not much faster, the Passmark Benchmark of:
GT 240 is 780
9800GT is 914

That is like around 14% of more power for the 9800 GT, AND the GT 240 runs cool and can be overclocked so that it's almost equivalent to the 9800GT. You don't have to but you can easily overclock it with the software included on the disk about 50-75MHZ on the core, shader and memory and you get extremely close processing power of a 9800GT.
With that you will also get the video editing features exclusive to the GT 240 such as the Pure Video HD which is better on the 240 and newer CUDA and PhysX. The GT 240 was intended for the exact same use, on NVIDIA's website it has three examples of applications of the GT 240, 2 on video editing and photo editing and 1 about gaming.
The 9800GT has 2 on gaming and one on 3D apps and CUDA- not to mention that the GT 240 has almost the same amount of CUDA cores, they are also improved from the older ones on the 9800GT.

The GT 240 is the better choice for video editing and the difference in the gaming performance between the 9800GT and GT 240 is very little, in games maybe 5-10fps extra which can be achieved on the GT 240 with an easy effortless overclock,

I run Fallout: New Vegas on high settings at 1680 by 1050 by default despite the fact the I'm running in PCI-E 1.0 at half the bandwidth and with a bottlenecking PD 925, so even if you are gaming with out video editing the GT 240 would still be a good choice although for gaming alone I'd probably get the 9800GT.

So GT 240 is an excellent choice.

Anyone else wanna argue/feedback/troll/agree/comment/suggest/correct me?



Have you ever owned both cards? I thought so <_< The 9800gt is a much better card and every one these days makes it out to be a complete power hog that it isn't even the 8800gtx wasn't as terrible power wise as some cards that are out there now.

65nm G92 30/85
55nm G92 20-60~ On average the power consumption was reduced by 15w on most samples that later were GT while the GTX samples was in the same ball park in terms of power reduction however had much higher figures. I own 3 of these and I know them like the back of my hand and even know the stock voltages for the cores on most cards. They are a much better value in the end when overclocking is factored in. A green edition without a power connector may not get far however the same core applied with a 6pin connector with a few tweaks can get over 730mhz on the core and 1.8ghz on the shader. The GT240 much like the GT430 and the 9600gso perform much closer to the 9600gt due to their poor fill rates that hinder their performance. Also the lower clocks on the GT240 and GT430 reduce their value as performance cards. They are good when power is the determinate factor as well needing to be single slot. Second never quote or depend on a benchmark suite as a figure of performance alone but actual games in comparison to other cards at the same settings. I am a collector and am well on my way to having 40 cards in my collection.

9800GT > GT40

I always look for best performance for the dollar unless power and single slot was the determinate factor.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 28, 2011 1:06:25 PM

I have tried both, but what I own is the GT 240, as I just said, the 9800GT is 14% faster, however if you overclock a GT 240, which is easy as it doesn't run hot, the 9800GT would only be 5% faster than an overclocked GT 240, you could check out the PCWIZKID review, it included that.

I completley understand what you are saying, I know that the GT 240 is expensive, and that the 9800GT is more powerful at a lower cost, but regardless of fill rates, GPU architectures, and numbers; the performance that you get at the end is what matters.

What would be the difference in frame rate between the two?
For video editing the GT 240 wins because that is the purpose of the card set by NVIDIA.
For gaming the 9800GT wins, but if you forget about voltages, clocks , architectures and just play a game the difference in frame rate is a mere 10fps- I have sources if you want to further information.
"Hardly any gaming at all" "Video editing" "Single Slot"- all that points to a GT 240.
You also forgot about DX10.1 and OpenGL3.2 as well as the fact that the card is made for video editing yet can handle games.

Go to GT240 on NVIDIA.com

This card is a perfect match, a summary of everything written is that it does Video editing, photo editing and HD playback/editing and it can at the same time handle games.

The better choice for gaming is the 9800GT, I know that, I know a lot about that card too and about the older 8 and 9 series which out performed NVIDIA's GT2xx and GT4xx series but every thing you talked about is how it does in games, my card runs at 405MHz-Core clock half the time when using Sony Vegas so that wouldn't matter.

You are focusing too much on gaming, which he doesn't do much. Video encoding and rendering requires things like CUDA, although the 9800GT has a few more cores than the GT 240, the GT 240 has improved CUDA over the older series.


Score
0
January 28, 2011 5:39:02 PM

Quote:
I have tried both, but what I own is the GT 240, as I just said, the 9800GT is 14% faster, however if you overclock a GT 240, which is easy as it doesn't run hot, the 9800GT would only be 5% faster than an overclocked GT 240, you could check out the PCWIZKID review, it included that.

I completley understand what you are saying, I know that the GT 240 is expensive, and that the 9800GT is more powerful at a lower cost, but regardless of fill rates, GPU architectures, and numbers; the performance that you get at the end is what matters.

What would be the difference in frame rate between the two?
For video editing the GT 240 wins because that is the purpose of the card set by NVIDIA.
For gaming the 9800GT wins, but if you forget about voltages, clocks , architectures and just play a game the difference in frame rate is a mere 10fps- I have sources if you want to further information.
"Hardly any gaming at all" "Video editing" "Single Slot"- all that points to a GT 240.
You also forgot about DX10.1 and OpenGL3.2 as well as the fact that the card is made for video editing yet can handle games.

Go to GT240 on NVIDIA.com

This card is a perfect match, a summary of everything written is that it does Video editing, photo editing and HD playback/editing and it can at the same time handle games.

The better choice for gaming is the 9800GT, I know that, I know a lot about that card too and about the older 8 and 9 series which out performed NVIDIA's GT2xx and GT4xx series but every thing you talked about is how it does in games, my card runs at 405MHz-Core clock half the time when using Sony Vegas so that wouldn't matter.

You are focusing too much on gaming, which he doesn't do much. Video encoding and rendering requires things like CUDA, although the 9800GT has a few more cores than the GT 240, the GT 240 has improved CUDA over the older series.



The only difference I see is this:

8800gt has 112 core

gt240 has 96 core

core 8800gt=600MHz, gt240=550Mhz
Bandwidth 8800gt=57.6, gt240=54.4
openGL 8800gt=2.1, gt240=3.1 (how is openGl used in video editing?)
Direct-x 8800gt=10.0, gt240=10.1
Memory interface 8800gt =256-bit, gt240=128-bit


That said the 8800gt is more powerful.

If you want to talk about overclocking you have to overclock both not just one to get their potential!

What is this pure video being better on the 240? where did you get this from?

Score
0

Best solution

Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 29, 2011 7:06:36 AM

accolite said:
The only difference I see is this:

8800gt has 112 core

gt240 has 96 core

core 8800gt=600MHz, gt240=550Mhz
Bandwidth 8800gt=57.6, gt240=54.4
openGL 8800gt=2.1, gt240=3.1 (how is openGl used in video editing?)
Direct-x 8800gt=10.0, gt240=10.1
Memory interface 8800gt =256-bit, gt240=128-bit


That said the 8800gt is more powerful.

If you want to talk about overclocking you have to overclock both not just one to get their potential!

What is this pure video being better on the 240? where did you get this from?



I got "this" from NVIDIA's product descriptions. Who do you trust, the makers of the card themselves or a comparison of the specs.

The Core 2 Duo beats a Pentium D big time when they have the same specs. Not everything is included in the specs, what about the architecture, are you a GPU architect?

I'm talking according to the makers of the card themselves, why don't you ask this on the NVIDIA forums and get an answer from the real experts.

You people just can't let go of the 8 and 9 series.

After all of this comparison of specifications, the 9800GT hardly gets 10fps extra- if you want I have sources.

I mean come on, this is a nobrainer, WHY go into the tech when NVIDIA has already given you an overview of the cards.

So you think that the Pure Video HD on a 7300 is the same as that on an 8800 or 9800.
They don't use the same technology they did three years ago, even CUDA, it's not the number of cores that counts.
What wins, an Athlon X4 or i7 2600k, they are both quad cores, are you getting me?

the 9800GT and 8800GT are more powerful, and that's for sure and obvious but the GT 240 will perform better in video editing than the 9800GT, I've already explained that in the previous post even though I didn't need to as NVIDIA offers an overview of their cards on their website so that you don't have to go into the tech.
Higher fill rates and bandwidth wouldn't improve video editing performance as you're not doing absolute live graphics processing like in gaming.

The GT240 is an HD video editing and media card suitable for gaming.
The 9800GT is a gaming card suitable for HD video editing and media.

What part of "single slot" and "hardly any gaming" don't you understand?

Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 29, 2011 7:20:53 AM

Please don't blab anymore about the 9800GT being faster because we already know that!
Score
0
January 29, 2011 8:53:32 AM

Best answer selected by Grunberg.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
January 29, 2011 10:04:08 AM

Well there ya go,

All of us had the same opinions on every thing but most of you guys didn't pay attention to the determining factors which were that it had to be a single slot and mainly be for video editing.

All graphics card reviews are done based on gaming performance but that's not always what we need.

After all this arguing of which card is more suitable for his needs I'd like to remind you all that the difference in frame rates between the two is very minor, if you take the time to read reviews you'd notice that the 9800GT rarely wins by above 8fps.

So, peace :) 

edit

I FINALLY FOUND THE PROOF THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR! (why the GT 240 is a better choice) :


have a look at this, What do you notice? The GT 240 is a near equivalent to the 9600GT, WHAT ABOUT THE 9600GT IN COMPARISON WITH THE 9800GT?!
LOOK AT THIS!


http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/video_lookup.php?cpu=...

I'm also digging through my web history right now to find more proof.
Score
0
a c 271 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a c 171 Î Nvidia
January 29, 2011 6:16:14 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!