Game Benchmarks: Far Cry 2
Far Cry 2 gives us a much closer race, but the story remains the same as it did with Crysis: the GeForce 9800/8800 GT is the performance leader and the GeForce 9600 GT performs closely to the new GeForce GT 240 cards.
150
Comments
Related Stories :
- GeForce GT 240: Low Power, High Performance, Sub-$100
- Zotac Unveils ZBOX with GeForce GT 520M Graphics
- Nvidia GeForce GT 640 Review: Cramming Kepler Into GK107
- Nvidia Preps OEM GeForce GT 630, GT 645 & Three GT 640s
- Zotac Offering GeForce GT 520 for Classic PCI Slots
- Nvidia Launches GeForce GT 540M Mobile GPU
- GeForce GT 430: The HTPC Crowd Gets Fermi On A Diet
- Nvidia Releases GeForce GT 300 OEM Series Bump
- GeForce GT 220 And 210: DirectX 10.1 And 40nm Under $80
- GeForce 9600 GT/GTS 250/GTX 260 Non-Reference Roundup
awesome for an HTPC!!
Well, it appears I might be the first poster... and that's pretty indicative of how exciting this card truly is. At any price point it's just hard to get excited when a company is just re-badging/re-naming older cards. DDR5? Oh yay! Now about that 128 bit bus...
I really can't justify this card when a Sparkle 9800GT is on newegg for the same price or less than these cards. Perhaps if energy costs are really important to you?
The memory on the Diamond Radeon HD 4670 is clocked 200Mhz below reference speeds.
Also, the 9600 GSO was on the Egg for $35 after MIR a few weeks/months back. No, that's not a top-tier card, but at $35 that's practically an impulse buy.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/
Looking at what cards people actually have (8800gt mostly), I think there are very few that would want to upgrade to this. Give us something better, Nvidia! The only reason why Ati doesn't have a 90% market share right now is that they can't make 5800s and 5700s fast enough.
the card is pointless, it's Nvidia's attempt to get some $$$ before an EP!C FA!L launch of Fermi
The card is pointless, it's Nvidia's attempt to get some $$$ before an EP!C FA!L launch of Fermi.
No SLI means they want to force higher profit purchases from those looking for cheap multi-card setups. That's dirty. I wonder how two 4670s compare to one of these for the damn near the same price?
I too noticed the discrepancy in your stated numbers for the Diamond 4670. In the article it states 750MHz / 800MHz (1600 effective). But then in your chart it states 750MHz / 1000MHz (2000 effective).
So, which one was used? Reference is 750/1000 (2000 eff.) Diamond had two versions, I believe, one at the reference speed and one at 750/900 (1800 eff.)
Just trying to understand you pick so we could better understand the results.
No idea what Nvidia is thinking with the the release of this card sine a new 9800 GT is $89. They either have to drop the price of these GT240s to below $70 soon or it'll be huge loss. But maybe not. The only reason I an think of as to why Nvidia made this card is they had a bunch of spare parts lying around and rather than junk them, try to squeeze out some pennies. But then again ATI is playing the same game so if you can't beat them, join them!
This card is nice but the price just is not right. For the same price you could get a 9800GT or save $20 (at least) and get a 4670
From the benchmarks the change in performance isn't worth that large ramp up in price.
BTW I have a 4650 going in my HTPC
and 2 XFX4890s in my desktop/gaming computer
At any price point it's just hard to get excited when a company is just re-badging/re-naming older cards.
The GT 240 isn't a rebadge, it's a new GPU based on the same architecture as the GTX 200 series.
These cards are a waste of money. A used 9600gt/gso can be had for less. Even my 8800gtx cost me less and I am using it now. Even my vintage 7900gtx duo (early gx2) holds its own.
The memory on the Diamond Radeon HD 4670 is clocked 200Mhz below reference speeds.
Absolutely right, fixed!
From the benchmarks the change in performance isn't worth that large ramp up in price.
I totally agree with you, however launch pricing is always high.
Remember, we don't get to see the actual launch pricing until you do. The article was written before the GT 240 was for sale, and we were told it was a sub-$100 card.
The reason I've been positive about this card is that production costs should be low enough for Nvidia to compete on price very quickly. For example, look at the GeForce GT 220: $80 at launch a couple weeks ago, it's already down to the low $60 range.
You'll need to use common sense. At $110, the Radeon 4850 is the obvious winner, and at $90 the 8800 GT is the way to go.
But pricing should fall into place with the DDR3 GT 240 at Radeon 4670 prices, and the GDDR5 GT 240 just under 9600 GT prices. That's where the new card is a recommended buy.
awesome for an HTPC!!
yes , indeed.
If you are going to spend close to $100 on a video card then you might as well get the ATi HD 4870.
I found it for only $11 over the sub $100 range.
The performance difference would DEFINITELY be worth $11.
http://www.eworldsale.com/powercol [...] 29335.html
Not a bad article, but very misleading however. Sub $100 tested with cards over $100? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] -_-Product
At that price its competing with the 4770s not the 4670. But this is an Nvidia article, gotta make them look good by omitting certain facts.