Conclusion
Nvidia is due for some good news. Does the new GeForce GT 240 provide that? I think that it does.
While the sub-$100 graphics card segment doesn't generate the same excitement as the top-end models, it remains a key market for selling in volume. AMD left a gap in the $70-$110 price range when it axed its Radeon HD 4830. Nvidia has not been able to take full advantage of this due to the relatively high cost of manufacturing its GeForce 9600 GSO and GeForce 9600 GT.
The GeForce GT 240 serves up just what the doctor ordered. The cost-effective 40nm process, combined with a 128-bit memory interface, helps keep production costs down, while 96 stream processors and fast GDDR5 memory keep performance in the ballpark of the venerable GeForce 9600 GT. Pairing the new card with cheaper DDR3 memory will allow the price to drop even further, replacing the GeForce 9600 GSO as strong competition for ATI's Radeon HD 4670.
Along with these important fundamentals, the new GeForce GT 240 provides DirectX 10.1 compatibility, an eight-channel LPCM audio controller, CUDA, PhysX, and GeForce 3D Vision compatibility. Equally important in our eyes, it doesn't require a separate PCIe power connector, which opens it up as an upgrade for folks who don't want to invest the money for a power supply upgrade. And let's not forget the HTPC market: a low-cost, low-power, high-performance card capable of eight channel LPCM over HDMI is sure to be an attractive item.
But the elephant in the room is, as mentioned previously, imminent competition from ATI. The lack of DirectX 11 compatibility might not be an issue in this price segment right now, but in the first quarter of next year, ATI will be releasing the lower-end Redwood and Cedar parts from its Evergreen lineup. Another bothersome tidbit is that Nvidia's new model demonstrates a notable anti-aliasing performance deficit when compared to the GeForce 9600 GT it is replacing. And it is especially difficult to forget the GeForce GT 240's lack of SLI support, something both the GeForce 9600 GSO and GT have always had.
But none of these issues are show-stoppers today. The point is that Nvidia now has a cost-effective part that it can leverage to not only compete with the existing Radeon HD 4670 when paired up to DDR3, but replace the GeForce 9600 GT when it's armed with GDDR5. Though at-launch pricing is usually high, Nvidia will finally have the flexibility to compete at the entry-level once production has ramped up, and we will undoubtedly see that happen with the GeForce GT 240.
This is good news for the consumer, to be sure. Let's face it. Not everybody can afford a $300 graphics card. Low-cost performers like the Radeon HD 4670, GeForce 9600 GSO, and GeForce 9600 GT have been providing an excellent gaming experience for folks without big dollars to spend, and more solid competition to drive prices down in this space can only benefit us all in the long run.
The Palit GeForce GT 240 Sonic Edition
Palit has the distinction of selling the only launch-ready GeForce GT 240 with a full gigabyte of GDDR5 RAM, with factory-overclocked GPU, shader, and memory clocks to boot. While the performance advantage of the extra RAM isn't always significant, there will be folks interested in the long-term prospects of having the extra memory on-board (some game settings simply require the extra memory). For these buyers, Palit's Sonic Edition is a favorable GeForce GT 240 option right now.
The Zotac GeForce GT 240 AMP! Edition
Zotac provides some respectably-high factory overclocks on its AMP! Edition cards, and the company's GeForce GT 240 is no exception. Despite its elevated clock rates, this card used slightly less power than our old favorite, ATI's Radeon HD 4670 (all in a small single-slot package, too). If the GeForce GT 240 appeals to you, Zotac's AMP! Edition is definitely worth considering.
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...