GT240

[xorbe]

TomsHardware benchmarks 512MB and 1GB versions, but inevitably, they are GDDR5 models, and 95% of Newegg stock is the much slower GDDR3 models ...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gt-240,2475.html

Any GT240 512MB GDDR3 vs GDDR5 benchmarks on the web?

[CaptNKILL]

That's pretty solid performance for a card that doesn't require a power connector.

Still, the price will determine how good of a deal this is. Its already slower than the 9800\8800GT and even the 9600GT.

[Rakeesh]

This thing looks like it would run really cool, if it were a little faster I'd take it. I'm sick of these graphics cards that run as hot as a space heater.

[DSC]

Only buy the GT 240 GDDR5 versions, 512MB or 1GB. Don't bother with the GDDR3 versions, they are crippled by lack of bandwidth, 28-32GB vs 54.4GB on the GDDR5 version.

It's also good for HTPC, it has PureVideo HD VP4 with full bitstream decoding for H.264, VC-1, MPEG-2 & MPEG4 ASP and HD audio processor built-in for 8 channel LPCM support like the GT 220 and 210.

[HYBRID]

I don’t really get the purpose of these cards other than maybe HTPC, or maybe using it as a discrete PhysX card.

It’s certainly to slow for gaming at anything higher than 1024 or 1280, and the price is to close to a 9800gt which you can find all day long for $89 bucks new and will play better oh well.

[xorbe]

because I don't want to fight heat and power issues in the abused family desktop. this looks like a decent no-hassle upgrade from the entry-level 7-series card that's in there now.

(yes, I have a gtx260 in my personal machine, a real video card, hehheh.)

[Q]

I've got a GT210 that has a dual slot STOCK cooler on it. No fricken lie. I was highly disappointed to lose a slot in my HTPC.

[ViN86]

Hey guys, Mike just put up my review of the GT 240. There was a mention of comparing it with a 9800GT so I compared the two. Check it out :)

http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/evga_geforce_240_gt/index.shtml

[CaptNKILL]

GPU-Z must be reporting some things incorrectly with those cards.

The fillrate of the two cards should be much closer and the bandwidth shouldn't be doubled. The transistor count and die size are also backwards. I'm surprised that GPU-Z has errors like that. :p

Just using this as a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_NVIDIA_Graphics_Processing_Units#GeF orce_200_Series

Very nice review though ViN. :thumbsup:

That would make a great physx card.

[ViN86]

GPU-Z must be reporting some things incorrectly with those cards.

The fillrate of the two cards should be much closer and the bandwidth shouldn't be doubled. The transistor count and die size are also backwards. I'm surprised that GPU-Z has errors like that. :p

Just using this as a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_NVIDIA_Graphics_Processing_Units#GeF orce_200_Series

Very nice review though ViN. :thumbsup:

That would make a great physx card.

Wow I should have checked out that GPU-Z report. I bet it was just a fluke since it was a new card when I tested it. (I did the GPU-Z report months ago)

I will run it again when I get back to my rig (I am away atm, since I am home for break). I will fix it up. Hope the review helps some people though. It really is a great secondary card. It puts up great performance and the fact that it doesn't need external power is a huge benefit for those that want a dedicated PhysX card without the extra power.