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

Features
By
published

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.

Don Woligroski
150 Comments Comment from the forums
  • 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