Thread: GT240
View Single Post
Old 01-02-10, 01:48 AM   #10
ViN86
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,486
Default Re: GT240

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptNKILL View Post
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.

Just using this as a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...rce_200_Series

Very nice review though ViN.

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.
ViN86 is offline   Reply With Quote