Game Benchmarks: Crysis
It looks like the GeForce 9600 GT is putting up a pretty good fight against the GeForce GT 240 cards. Although, for all intents and purposes, the slight difference can be called a draw. The GeForce 9800/8800 GT easily walks away with a win here, and the GeForce 9600 GSO also competes well, but ultimately falls short of the newer cards.
Note the Radeon HD 4670 getting bested in this title--not much of a surprise, since the Crytek engine has seemed to favor Nvidia's architecture. We can postulate that a DDR3 version of the GeForce GT 240 would probably perform similarly to the Radeon HD 4670, though.
150
Comments
- 1 / 8
- Next
-
Latest Graphics Cards News
- 05/20 – Qualcomm Hires Former AMD CTO Demers
- 05/18 – Nvidia Responds to GeForce 600 Series V-Sync Stuttering Issue
- 05/17 – Behold: Here Are The First Unreal Engine 4 Screens
- 05/17 – Nvidia Debuts GK110-based 7.1 Billion Transistor Super GPU
- 05/17 – GE Announces Kepler Graphics Card for Military and Aviation
Latest Graphics Cards reviews
- 05/10 – GeForce GTX 670 2 GB Review: Is It Already Time To Forget GTX...
- 05/09 – Best Graphics Cards For The Money: May 2012
- 05/09 – Video Teaser: Radeon HD 7800 Series Remains A Solid Value
- 05/08 – Benchmarking AMD's 768-Shader Pitcairn: Not For Public...
- 05/03 – GeForce GTX 690 Review: Testing Nvidia's Sexiest...
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.
What dark_lord69 and noob2222 said. The 4670 is starting to see after-rebate prices of just $40. The $100 price point is closer to the 4770.