Skip to main content

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

GeForce Vs. GeForce? The Sub-$100 Market

We have a strange situation here in that the new GeForce GT 240's main competition turns out to be other GeForce cards. AMD left a large gap between the ~$70 Radeon HD 4670 and the ~$110 Radeon HD 4770/4850. The Radeon HD 4830 used to compete well in this space, but poor availability suggests that it's at the end of its life already.

Because of this, the GeForce GT 220 will be competing mostly against members of its own family: the GeForce 9600 GSO, 9600 GT, and 9800 GT. Of course, we won't forget the Radeon HD 4670.

GeForce GT 240GeForce 9600 GSOGeForce 9600 GTRadeon HD 4670
Fabrication Process40nmG96: 65nmG94: 55nm65/55nm55nm
Graphics Clock (Texture and ROP units)550 MHz550 MHz650 MHz750 MHz
Processor Clock (Shader Units)1,360 MHz1,375 MHz1,625 MHzN/A
Memory Clock (Clock Rate/Data Rate)850 MHz (3,400 MHz effective) GDDR51,000 MHz (2,000 MHz effective) DDR3800 MHz(1,600 MHz effective) DDR3900 MHz (1,800 MHz effective) DDR31,000 MHz (2,000 MHz effective) DDR3
Memory Interface128-bitG96: 192-bit/128-bitG94: 256-bit256-bit128-bit
Stream processors96G96: 96G94: 4864320
ROP Units8121616
Texture Filtering Units32483232
Microsoft DirectX/Shader model10.1/4.110/4.010/4.010.1/4.1

Note how close the specifications for the new GeForce GT 240 are to the older GeForce 9600 GT. There are two principal differences: the new GeForce GT 240 sports half the memory bus, but using high-bandwidth GDDR5 memory compensates for that. However, the GeForce 9600 GT boasts higher clock speeds and 33% more ROPs. This is something that may manifest itself through higher performance in certain situations.

Bear in mind that Nvidia will likely eliminate its older, costlier-to-produce cards from the market soon after the GeForce GT 240 arrives in full force. If the different flavors of GeForce GT 240 can compete with the GeForce 9600 GSO and GeForce 9600 GT, it would make sense for Nvidia to pull the plug on those models when they're no longer being ordered. If the performance is there, it might even be a good idea to pull the GeForce 9800 GT.

  • 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