Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Power And Temperature Benchmarks

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

Let's start with our power consumption benchmarks. We performed this test using an AMD 785G-based motherboard and Athlon II X2 240e CPU combo so that idle power was as low as possible. Load benchmark readings were taken after a five minute Furmark stability test at 1280x1024 with 8xAA applied:

It's hard not to notice the massive power draw of the GeForce 9600 GSO, even surpassing the overclocked GeForce 9800/8800 GT.

It also surprised us how little power the GeForce 9600 GT uses under load, as we expected a much higher power draw from that card. Our sample is based on the 55nm G94, but even so, the results are impressive.

Notice how the new GeForce GT 240 boasts very low idle power in both of its GDDR5 flavors. Our results are even more notable when you consider that these cards are factory overclocked. The Palit Sonic Edition does use more power under load due to its 1GB GDDR5 frame buffer.

Now let's look to the GPU temperature benchmarks:

We can see that the passively-cooled GeForce 9600 cards are at a disadvantage here, but the new GeForce GT 240 cards are sporting some low temperatures. Once again the Palit card is a little hotter, perhaps related to the different cooling solution used.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the UK Article comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 18 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 2 Hide
    mi1ez , 17 November 2009 21:47
    3D vision?! at what resolution? 240x320?!
  • 1 Hide
    americanbrian , 17 November 2009 22:59
    so basically buying an old 8800GT is advisable over buying this new rip-off crap.

  • -2 Hide
    redkachina , 18 November 2009 02:37
    its not crap..its designed for low end market, not for gamers in the 1st place..plus no 6 pin power = low power consumption..i wonder if its good for as a physx card..the ddr3 version is quite similar to a geforce 8800gs..
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , 18 November 2009 03:48
    I fear that your math skills on page two have let you down. Because the two figures are independent variables they cannot be linked. It would be like saying 10% of apples are rotten and 20% of apples sold are Golden Delicious, the number of rotten golden delicious would not neccesarily be 2 in 100 (infact it's likely to be somewhat higher for organic crops).
  • 1 Hide
    rd20 , 18 November 2009 04:57
    Wow, because cards like the Radeon 4770 and 5750 completely do not exist. Pathetic selection of GPUs just to try to mask how badly positioned this card is.
  • 0 Hide
    americanbrian , 18 November 2009 05:06
    People should read the 5 pages of comments on the USA site. I find it really funny to read the masses of readers complaining about the poor value of the card and bias of the review, then you get some BLATANTLY hired "readers" that have catchy one-liners a la "this is great, no really..."

    I count about 5 shills on there.
  • 0 Hide
    xupaguy , 18 November 2009 05:14
    id actually love one of these in my games machine!
    Before you laugh there's only one reason for it.
    At the min i use an ATI HD4890 and a Nvidia 9500GT to run PhysX, and at around £70 i think the 240 GDDR5 would do the job as damn site better than i can get out of the 9500. I can get all the PhysX effects going, but by god, i have to overclock the little blighter something unreal. This new 240 would be a dream in my machine!
  • 2 Hide
    Dandalf , 18 November 2009 05:59
    Cool, I feel a bit sorry for NV at the moment, they are being attacked from both sides by AMD and Intel. Of course they like to price gouge and ATI is still the underdog, but overall I hope competition remains and we don't see any monopoly forming one way or the other.
  • 0 Hide
    xupaguy , 18 November 2009 06:05
    damn right with that dandalf. lack of competion stiffles further development, and thats not what any of us, even the companys themselfs no doubt!
  • 1 Hide
    bobster82 , 18 November 2009 17:56
    I have ordered a HD4770 and I think its both cheap and better than the GTX240 but I wouldn't mind a comparison
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 18 November 2009 22:37
    This review doesn't benckmark the GT240 running with GDDR3 memory which is closer to the price of a 4670. With GDDR3 I doubt the GT240 would be any faster than the ATU 4670.
  • 0 Hide
    jimb06789 , 19 November 2009 02:09
    Which 96gso did you test? There's two versions, the 48SP and the 96SP.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 22 November 2009 23:06
    As RD20!! Not sure why the HD4770 is not in the comparison? Lowest prices are around £60 for either although most stores have the HD4770 for less than the GDDR5 equipped GT 240. Nvidia bias anyone?
  • 0 Hide
    americanbrian , 5 December 2009 05:56
    @xupaguy,

    I stand by my statement. You would still be better served by the 8800GT and could find one cheaper.
  • 0 Hide
    arakrazy , 6 December 2009 12:15
    americanbrian@xupaguy,I stand by my statement. You would still be better served by the 8800GT and could find one cheaper.


    not here in the uk
    http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=geforce+8800gt&scoring=p&show=dd&sa=N&start=50
    occasionally £50 or so for 2ndhands, mostly £80+ once V.A.Tax and shipping included.

    an 8600 or 9600 can be found for £40 or so

    Me? Efficient 4650. £35 all in. When I have the £, upgrade time!
  • 0 Hide
    americanbrian , 9 December 2009 20:48
    @Arakrazy,

    I agree that those options may suit you better than the 8800GT, my point is that if you are looking in the sub £100 market for a nvidia card and want it to game as well as for your HTPC then the older 8800GT simply outclasses this new offering.

    It would pour all kinds of hurt onto all the cards you have suggested in a performance review.
  • 0 Hide
    arakrazy , 9 December 2009 23:12
    You're right, of course. If I could afford a bigger PSU and pricier card, it'd be the one to get...
  • 0 Hide
    arakrazy , 9 December 2009 23:14
    Quote:
    I fear that your math skills on page two have let you down. Because the two figures are independent variables they cannot be linked. It would be like saying 10% of apples are rotten and 20% of apples sold are Golden Delicious, the number of rotten golden delicious would not neccesarily be 2 in 100 (infact it's likely to be somewhat higher for organic crops).


    lol. Just read this.

    If, from what was said, the 2 variables are truly independent, then it IS a good guess to then say 2 in 100 are rotten golden delicious. It's only when they are dependent/correlated/whatever the term is that their independent probabilities can't be simply combined.

    Then again, I can't see the article at the mo, and hence the actual point that was being made...