Skip to main content

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

Test System And Benchmarks

We began our testing with the 191.07 driver that came on the Zotac AMP! Edition driver CD, which immediately detected the new GeForce GT 240 cards. It is notable that the 191.07 driver available for download on the Nvidia Web site acts differently in that it doesn't properly detect the GeForce GT 240. Once we were deep into reviewing the new cards, we were asked to use Nvidia's beta 195.5 driver instead. Additional comparison testing demonstrated that the results were identical, within a margin of error, so we're publishing the results we procured with the 191.07 driver from Zotac.  

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 offers slightly underclocked memory compared to the reference speeds. It is especially important to note that our Gigabyte GV-N96GMC-512H sample used to represent the GeForce 9600 GSO is based on the older (more powerful) G92/256-bit memory design instead of the newer G96/128-bit memory configuration of the newer GeForce 9600 GSO cards.

Graphic Test System
CPUIntel Core i7-920 (Nehalem), 2.67 GHz, QPI-4200, 8MB CacheOverclocked to 3.06 GHz @ 153 MHz Bclk
MotherboardASRock X58 Supercomputer Intel X58, BIOS P1.90
NetworkingOnboard Realtek Gigabit LAN controller
MemoryKingston PC3-10700 3 x 1,024MB, DDR3-1225, CL 9-9-9-22-1T
GraphicsZotac GeForce GT240 512 MB AMP! Edition600 MHz Core, 1,460 MHz Shaders, 1,000 MHz Memory, 512MB GDDR5Palit GeForce GT240 1 GB Sonic Edition585 MHz Core, 1,424 MHz Shaders, 945 MHz Memory, 1GB GDDR5Gigabyte GeForce GT220720 MHz Core, 1,566 MHz Shaders, 800 MHz Memory, GB DDR3Gigabyte GeForce 9600 GSO650 MHz Core, 1,625 MHz Shaders, 900 MHz Memory, 512MB DDR3Gigabyte GeForce 9600 GT650 MHz Core, 1,625 MHz Shaders, 900 MHz Memory, 1GB DDR3Gigabyte GeForce 8800 GT700 MHz Core, 1,700 MHz Shaders, 920 MHz Memory, 512MB DDR3Diamond Radeon 4670750 MHz Core, 800 MHz Memory, 1GB DDR3
Hard DriveWestern Digital Caviar WD50 00AAJS-00YFA, 500GB, 7200 RPM, 8MB cache, SATA 3.0 Gb/s
PowerThermaltake Toughpower 1,200W1,200 W, ATX 12V 2.2, EPS 12v 2.91
Software and Drivers
Operating SystemMicrosoft Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit 6.0.6001, SP1
DirectX versionDirectX 10
Graphics DriversAMD Catalyst 9.9, Nvidia GeForce 191.07
Benchmark Configuration
3D Games
CrysisPatch 1.2.1, DirectX 9, 64-bit executable, benchmark tool Low Quality, Medium Textures, Shadows, Physics, Shaders, Water, and Sound, No AA
Far Cry 2Patch 1.02, in-game benchmark Medium Quality, No AA
World In ConflictPatch 1009, DirectX 9, timedemo Medium Details, No AA/No AF
Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X.Patch 1.02, DirectX 10 & 10.1, in-game benchmark Low Shadows, Sun ShaftsMedium View Distance, Environment, SSAOHigh Forest, TexturesHDR, Engine Heat, and DOE On, No AA
Left 4 DeadVersion 1.0.1.5., Custom THG Benchmark Run 1: High Settings, no AA, no AFRun 2: High Settings, Medium Shaders, 4xAA, 8xAF
Resident Evil 5Resident Evil 5 Benchmark VersionHigh Shadows and Textures, Medium Overall Detail, Motion Blur On, no AA, no AF
Batman: Arkham AsylumVersion 1.1, in-game benchmark Highest Quality, No AA, Normal PhysX
Fallout 3Patch 1.4.0.6., Custom THG Benchmark High Quality, No AA, No AF
Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
3DMark VantageVersion: 1.02, PhysX Off, 3DMark scores
  • 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