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

The Competition, Cont.’d

Gigabyte GV-NX88T512HP
GeForce 9800 GT/GeForce 8800 GT

Ah, the GeForce 8800/9800 GT. This is a card that has had a long, successful run. Our Gigabyte GV-NX88T512HP is actually the older GeForce 8800 GT, but it's architecturally identical to the newer 9800 GT and it boasts clock speeds even higher than the 9800 GT reference: 700 MHz core, 920 MHz memory, and 1,700 MHz on the shaders.

With 112 shader units and a 256-bit memory interface, this is probably the most powerful sub-$100 graphics card you can buy today, since the Radeon HD 4830 is no longer a contender.

Gigabyte GV-N96TSL-1GI
GeForce 9600 GT

Gigabyte's GV-N96TSL-1GI runs at the reference GeForce 9600 GT clock speeds, but it boasts the 'silent cell' cooler that produces no noise at all.  On top of this, Gigabyte has graced the card with a full gigabyte of RAM.

Sporting a 256-bit memory interface and 64 shader units, the GeForce 9600 GT has a reputation for being a very fast card for the dollar.

Gigabyte GV-N96GMC-512H
GeForce 9600 GSO

The GV-N96GMC-512H is an interesting flavor of 9600 GSO. This Gigabyte card is factory overclocked at 650 MHz GPU with 1,625 MHz shaders, compared to the reference 600 MHz GPU and 1,500 MHz shader clock rates. Even the 900 MHz GDDR3 memory is clocked faster than the 800 MHz reference speed.

Add to this a nice 256-bit memory interface, along with a completely silent passive cooler, and the GV-N96GMC-512H is a powerful representative of the GeForce 9600 GSO--much more powerful than the 128-bit G96 version. So, we must keep this in mind when looking at the benchmarks.

Diamond Radeon HD 4670

Diamond’s version of the Radeon HD 4670 sticks close to the reference model with a 750 MHz core and 800 MHz memory (1,600 effective) clock. But it’s far from a pushover. Until now, the Radeon HD 4670 has been the most powerful reference graphic card you can get without a discrete power cconnector, and with its 320 stream processors and GDDR3 memory, the new GeForce GT 240 needs to provide impressive performance in order to best it.

On a side note, Diamond’s Radeon HD 4670 will underclock itself to 165 MHz GPU and 300 MHz memory at idle to save power.

  • DeadCat
    awesome for an HTPC!!
  • 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...
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • 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.

    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.
  • jonpaul37
    the card is pointless, it's Nvidia's attempt to get some $$$ before an EP!C FA!L launch of Fermi
  • jonpaul37
    The card is pointless, it's Nvidia's attempt to get some $$$ before an EP!C FA!L launch of Fermi.
  • 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?
    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.