Skip to main content

GeForce GT 240: Low Power, High Performance, Sub-$100

Power And Temperature Benchmarks

Let's start with our power consumption benchmarks. We performed this test using an AMD 785G-based motherboard and Athlon II X2 240e CPU combo so that idle power was as low as possible. Load benchmark readings were taken after a five minute Furmark stability test at 1280x1024 with 8xAA applied:

It's hard not to notice the massive power draw of the GeForce 9600 GSO, even surpassing the overclocked GeForce 9800/8800 GT.

It also surprised us how little power the GeForce 9600 GT uses under load, as we expected a much higher power draw from that card. Our sample is based on the 55nm G94, but even so, the results are impressive.

Notice how the new GeForce GT 240 boasts very low idle power in both of its GDDR5 flavors. Our results are even more notable when you consider that these cards are factory overclocked. The Palit Sonic Edition does use more power under load due to its 1GB GDDR5 frame buffer.

Now let's look to the GPU temperature benchmarks:

We can see that the passively-cooled GeForce 9600 cards are at a disadvantage here, but the new GeForce GT 240 cards are sporting some low temperatures. Once again the Palit card is a little hotter, perhaps related to the different cooling solution used.

  • DeadCat
    awesome for an HTPC!!
    Reply
  • rodney_ws
    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...
    Reply
  • Ramar
    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?
    Reply
  • Uncle Meat
    Before we get into the game results, something we want to stress is that all of the GeForce cards we used for benchmarking ended up being factory overclocked models, but that our Diamond Radeon HD 4670 sample is clocked at reference speeds.

    The memory on the Diamond Radeon HD 4670 is clocked 200Mhz below reference speeds.
    Reply
  • rodney_ws
    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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • jonpaul37
    the card is pointless, it's Nvidia's attempt to get some $$$ before an EP!C FA!L launch of Fermi
    Reply
  • jonpaul37
    The card is pointless, it's Nvidia's attempt to get some $$$ before an EP!C FA!L launch of Fermi.
    Reply
  • JofaMang
    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?
    Reply
  • KT_WASP
    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.
    Reply