GeForce GT 240 Specifications And Hardware
Let's start with a look at the specifications of Nvidia's new GeForce GT 240-based graphics cards:
| GeForce GT 240 | ||
|---|---|---|
| GPU Designation | GT215 | |
| Fabrication Process | 40nm | |
| Graphics Clock (Texture and ROP units) | 550 MHz | |
| Processor Clock (Shader Units) | 1,360 MHz | |
| Memory Clock (Clock Rate/Data Rate) | 850 MHz (3,400 MHz effective) GDDR5 1,000 MHz (2,000 MHz effective) DDR3 | |
| Total Video Memory | 1GB, 512MB | |
| Memory Interface | 128-bit | |
| Total Memory Bandwidth | 54.4 GB/s (GDDR5) 32.0 GB/s (DDR3) | |
| Stream Processors | 96 | |
| ROP units | 8 | |
| Texture Filtering Units | 32 | |
| Microsoft DirectX/Shader model | 10.1/4.1 | |
| OpenGL | 3.2 | |
| PhysX Ready | Yes | |
| Video Format Support for GPU Decode Acceleration | MPEG-2, MPEG-4 Part 2 Advanced Simple Profile, H.264, VC1, WMV, DivX version 3.11 and later | |
| HD Digital Audio over PCI Express | Yes | |
| Connectors | DVI, VGA, HDMI | |
| Form Factor | Single-Slot | |
| Power Connectors | None | |
| HDMI version | 1.3a | |
| DisplayPort | 1.1 | |
| Dual Link DVI | Yes | |
| Bus Support | PCIe 2.0 | |
| Max Board power | 70 watts | |
| GPU Thermal Threshold | 105 degrees C | |
Just like the G 210 and GT 220 before it, the new GeForce GT 240 is based on the same GT200 architecture that spawned the GeForce GTX 200-series. We're not going to delve too deep into the GT200 architecture, since we've done that already in our GeForce GTX 280 launch article, which you can check out here.
We will go over the major specifications. however. The GeForce GTX 285 has 10 texture-processing clusters (TPCs) with 24 individual streaming processors (SPs) (or cores) in each one. Each TPC also has eight texture-management units (TMUs). There are eight 64-bit raster-operator partitions (ROPs) capable of handling eight raster operations per clock cycle each. As a result, the GTX 285 sports a total of 240 processor cores, 80 texture units, and eight ROPs capable of handling 64 pixels per clock, with all of the ROPs contributing to a 512-bit memory bus.
For comparison, the new GeForce GT 240 has four TPCs, each containing 24 SPs, for a total of 96 processor cores. Similar to the GeForce GTX 280, each TPC sports eight TMUs, for a total of 32 texture units. Two 64-bit ROPs capable of handling four pixels per clock work together to give the GPU a 128-bit memory interface and the capacity to handle eight raster operations per clock. Therefore, we expect the GT 240 to server up less than half of the processing power of a GeForce GTX 285.

The new GeForce GT 240 is also fabricated using TSMC's reportedly-problematic 40nm process, which should allow Nvidia to pull greater profit margins from this sub-$100 GPU compared to its 55 and 65nm cousins. Of course, it shares some other features with the G 210 and GT 220, such as DirectX 10.1 and Shader Model 4.1 support, eight-channel LPCM output support, and enhanced playback of DivX, VC-1, and MPEG-2 video codecs. The GeForce GT 240 is certified for not only CUDA and PhysX use, but is also GeForce 3D Vision-ready.
The biggest differentiator favoring Nvidia's GeForce GT 240 is its memory support. While the GeForce GT 220 is limited to DDR2 and GDDR3, the new GeForce GT 240 can be coupled with either DDR3 or GDDR5. This is very important, as GDDR5 offers two times the theoretical memory bandwidth per clock compared to DDR2 or GDDR3. The beauty of this is that it allows the GeForce GT 240 to offer similar memory bandwidth to GDDR3-equipped cards sporting a 256-bit memory interface (like the GeForce 9600 GT), but it keeps memory costs down. GDDR5 was one of AMD's aces when it launched the Radeon HD 4800-series cards, and this is Nvidia's first use of the technology. It's also the first time we've seen GDDR5 used on a card destined for the sub-$100 market. Nvidia's implementation of GDDR5 helps bridge the performance gap between 128-bit cards like the Radeon HD 4670 and 256-bit cards like the GeForce 9600 GT.
GeForce GT 240 distinguishes itself as the only reference card in this performance range without a dedicated power connector. This really brings the fight to the Radeon HD 4670, previously the undisputed performance king of reference cards without a PCIe power cable requirement.
Update: Wait a Minute. No SLI?
It's not all good news, however. The GeForce GT 240 lacks a feature that both the GeForce 9600 GSO and GT have offered since they were introduced: an SLI bridge connector.
Hoping that SLI might be supported over the PCI Express bus, we tried running our two test samples together. However, the driver panel wouldn't show us the option to enable SLI. Confused, we asked Nvidia for a bit of clarification. The company let us know that the GeForce GT 240 does not support SLI, and that Nvidia "typically hasn’t supported SLI for sub-$99 products, as users typically upgrade instead of buying a second card."
While Nvidia's position is certainly understandable, we find the news disappointing, as even low-end cards like the GeForce 9500 GT are often equipped with SLI support.
As far as users upgrading instead of buying a second card, Nvidia is absolutely correct: with the knowledge that the GeForce GT 240 will be replacing the GeForce 9600 GSO and GT, we had a look at Steam's Hardware Survey. According to the survey, only about 2% of gamers are running multi-GPU systems, and the GeForce 9600 GSO and GT represent about 6% of graphics cards out there. According to my math skills, that means that roughly 12 in every 10,000 gamers are running more than one GeForce 9600 in SLI.
Having said that, the GeForce GT 240 is certainly powerful enough to warrant SLI, and the lack of support for this new model is a disappointment since it is featured on the GeForce 9600-series cards being replaced.
Latest Graphics Cards News
- 20/05 – Qualcomm Hires Former AMD CTO Demers
- 18/05 – Nvidia Responds to GeForce 600 Series V-Sync Stuttering Issue
- 18/05 – Behold: Here Are The First Unreal Engine 4 Screens
- 17/05 – Nvidia Debuts GK110-based 7.1 Billion Transistor Super GPU
- 17/05 – GE Announces Kepler Graphics Card for Military and Aviation
Latest Graphics Cards reviews
- 18/05 – Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: May 2012
- 10/05 – Best Graphics Cards For The Money: May 2012
- 10/05 – GeForce GTX 670 2 GB Review: Is It Already Time To Forget GTX...
- 09/05 – Video Teaser: Radeon HD 7800 Series Remains A Solid Value
- 08/05 – Benchmarking AMD's 768-Shader Pitcairn: Not For Public...
3D vision?! at what resolution? 240x320?!
so basically buying an old 8800GT is advisable over buying this new rip-off crap.
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..
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).
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.
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.
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!
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.
damn right with that dandalf. lack of competion stiffles further development, and thats not what any of us, even the companys themselfs no doubt!
I have ordered a HD4770 and I think its both cheap and better than the GTX240 but I wouldn't mind a comparison
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.
Which 96gso did you test? There's two versions, the 48SP and the 96SP.
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?
@xupaguy,
I stand by my statement. You would still be better served by the 8800GT and could find one cheaper.
@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 [...] 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!
@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.
You're right, of course. If I could afford a bigger PSU and pricier card, it'd be the one to get...
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...