Geforce 9800GT Vs Geforce GT240

[agpvga]

So which is bette the GT240 or 9800GT
I want to know the every detail,
because I am planning to buy one of these.

GT240 Link:
http://www.centralcomputers.com/com...vi2bvga2bhdmi--01g-p3-1236-r-vgaevgag240r.htm
9800GT Link:
http://www.centralcomputers.com/com...e2-0-hdcp-hdt-512-p3-n973-tr-vgaevga9805r.htm

 

[MalVeauX]

Heya,

The 9800GT is faster. The 240 is very similar, smaller, less heat, etc, but ultimately the 9800GT is the better card. Nothing will top it for the money from that nVidia line until you hit the GTX+ and finally the GTX260. The 220, 240, 250, etc, are really just not worth it. Honestly, I'd tell you not to get either these days and go for an HD4770 or if you can manage, a GTX260 or HD5770.

Very best,

 

[Lonyo]

GT240 = 96 stream processors @ 550MHz
9800GT = 112 stream processors @ 600MHz
GTS250/9800GTX+ = 128 @ 738MHz

Memory bandwidth also increases as you go down the list.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gf-gt240-1gb_6.html#sect0
The 9800GT will slow in between the GT240 and the GTS250 in those charts. The GT240 you linked is only GDDR3 so it'll be the slower one.

http://www.centralcomputers.com/comm...aatir4857r.htm
That's another option you might want to consider, which would be slightly faster than the 9800GT across the board (but obviously a few bucks more expensive, if it's even in stock).
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3437&p=4 <- comparison of 9800GT and HD4850.

 

[Denithor]

What is the rest of your system?

 

[Phil1977]

GTS240 is slower than a 9600GT

 

[toyota]

GTS240 is slower than a 9600GT

you mean gt240 and yes in most cases it is slower than a 9600gt.

 

[Qbah]

GTS240 is slower than a 9600GT

Way to answer the question... The OP is asking about a GT240 and 9800GT and you tell him about a GTS240 (which is an OEM 9800GT actually) and a 9600GT and even then you say the GTS240 is slower which is wrong.

As others stated, the 9800GT is faster than a GT240.

 

[Phil1977]

As the above reader pointed out I meant GT240...

The GT240 is slower than a 9600GT.

And a 9600GT is slower than a 9800GT.

So the 9800GT is significantly faster than the GT240.

 

[alyarb]

So which is bette the GT240 or 9800GT
I want to know the every detail,
because I am planning to buy one of these.

GT240 Link:
http://www.centralcomputers.com/comm...aevgag240r.htm
9800GT Link:
http://www.centralcomputers.com/comm...aevga9805r.htm

I don't know why you are linking to centralcomputers.com, but if you are prepared to pay $110 for a GPU, you need to figure out how to make another $30 happen and get the XFX Radeon 5750. At stock speed it's more or less equal to a 9800 GTX+ but you will get unsurpassed power consumption with the radeon, even with a 20% overclock. we need to know what resolution you play at and what CPU you have and what games you play to give you the best answer, though. if you are stuck on some old monitor at 1280x1024 or lower and don't give a hoot about dx11 or GPGPU, you may as well just get some $50 card. if you're running 1680x1050 or higher, i would definitely get the 5750. Most of the cores I've seen can go straight to the 870 MHz maximum in CCC, while some of the less gifted ones top out around 820-850 MHz. Either way it's the sweet spot at $140 for performance, power, and features.

 

[radeon9]

I don't know why you are linking to centralcomputers.com, but if you are prepared to pay $110 for a GPU, you need to figure out how to make another $30 happen and get the XFX Radeon 5750. At stock speed it's more or less equal to a 9800 GTX+ but you will get unsurpassed power consumption with the radeon, even with a 20% overclock. we need to know what resolution you play at and what CPU you have and what games you play to give you the best answer, though. if you are stuck on some old monitor at 1280x1024 or lower and don't give a hoot about dx11 or GPGPU, you may as well just get some $50 card. if you're running 1680x1050 or higher, i would definitely get the 5750. Most of the cores I've seen can go straight to the 870 MHz maximum in CCC, while some of the less gifted ones top out around 820-850 MHz. Either way it's the sweet spot at $140 for performance, power, and features.

The 5750 is really a great video card. I like it.

 

[Schmide]

You can not get on someone for getting confused by the nVidia naming convention.

 

[nemesismk2]

going by fastest first geforce gts 250, 9800 gt and geforce gt 240

 

[Winterpool]

As some may already have read, I've been looking for a cheap, low-power video card for gaming on an HDTV. I'm going to try to game at 1280x720 and let the telly upscale from there to 1080. The idea essentially is to obtain a cheap console substitute, allowing one to play comparable games on the TV. I'm reasonably certain games like Bioshock should play well at such a resolution, less sure about more recent games eg Fallout 3. My 'stretch' would be to play Dragon Age at this resolution.

Initially I'd been inclined to buy the cheap ASUS model of the Radeon HD 4670, but the rebate seems to have successfully sold out the card at both Newegg and ZipZoomfly. I did note that Newegg is selling MSI's GT 240 for $58 after coupon and rebate. Unfortunately this is the DDR3 version of the GT 240, but the benchmarks I've seen make it roughly comparable to the HD 4670. Is it a bad buy even at this price (I'm assuming, or hoping, that the negative customer review of this card was caused by a dodgy sample).

I'm also very interested in the GT 240 owing to its very low power demands. I'm thinking of testing whatever card I buy on my parents' Dell Dimension (305 W power supply) before taking it up eventually to my ex-girlfriend's machine (Antec EarthWatts 380).

Edited: I know of course the GeForce 9800 GT will make for much happier gaming, but I'm uncertain even the low-power 550 MHz version will work on the Dell's PSU. Also I'd much rather spend closer to $50 than $100, heh.

 

[happy medium]

This is the best dael on a low power card on Newegg.
75$ shipped AR shipped for a gt240 with MSI 30&#37; overvoltage overclocking software.

Will easily work with any Dell psu.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127466

 

[Winterpool]

Ah! That overclockable MSI DDR5 card might be the way to go. Though paying $82 and change all told (sales tax!) for a GT 240 feels hard when a few weeks ago several 550 MHz 9800 GTs were being sold for less than that price (after rebate). But a low-power 9800 GT seems like it would be demanding too much of a 305 W power supply.

My other concern is that the the N240GT OC uses a dual-slot cooler. The Dell Dimension is a BTX design (remember those?), and there are no empty slots above the video card; though there seems to be plenty of empty space for the heatsink, I'm not sure if the second-slot extension of the card's faceplate would fit.

Mmm, rebate expires today...

 

[cbn]

you mean gt240 and yes in most cases it is slower than a 9600gt.

How is 96 stream processors/128 bit/DDR5 slower than 64 stream processors/256bit/GDDR3?

Or are you talking about the GDDR3 version of GT240?

I haven't checked reviews myself yet, but "on paper" the GDDR5 version of GT240 sounds like a nicely balanced card.

 

[happy medium]

How is 96 stream processors/128 bit/DDR5 slower than 64 stream processors/256bit/GDDR3?

Or are you talking about the GDDR3 version of GT240?

No gddr5 version and overclocked will = a 9800gt easily

They do 700 core,2000 shader,
From stock 585,1434

 

[toyota]

How is 96 stream processors/128 bit/DDR5 slower than 64 stream processors/256bit/GDDR3?

Or are you talking about the GDDR3 version of GT240?

I haven't checked reviews myself yet, but "on paper" the GDDR5 version of GT240 sounds like a nicely balanced card.

theres your problem...


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gf-gt240-1gb_13.html#sect0 "When clocked at the frequencies recommended by Nvidia, the GeForce GT 240 GDDR5 is inferior to the GeForce 9600 GT in 7 or 8 tests depending on the resolution."



http://www.techspot.com/review/223-gainward-geforce-gt-240-review/page12.html "After all, the factory overclocked Gainward GeForce GT240 1024MB GDDR5 Golden Sample was bettered by the old GeForce 9600 GT in quite a few of the games tested."

 

[happy medium]

I checked the reviews and for 75$AR it easily bests 4670 performance for price and uses less power.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/palit_gt240/7.htm

Look at the overclocking.

The 75$ one I linked also has MSI overvoltage overclocking.
Should do over 700 core stock voltage and more with some extra volts.

 

[cbn]

theres your problem...

I just took a look at a few reviews (hardforum and some others).

You are right. They are basically performing the same.

What happened? Design flaw?

 

[toyota]

I just took a look at a few reviews (hardforum and some others).

You are right. They are basically performing the same.

What happened? Design flaw?

the low clocks and just 8 ROPs might explain some of it but I would have expected it to be a bit faster myself.

 

[Winterpool]

Jah, I've spent much of the afternoon reviewing benchmarks across the Intarweb, and it seems safe to say the the GDDR5 version, with a touch of overclocking, will match or beat the GeForce 9600 GT unless one ramps up the AA and AF. It comes close to a 9800 GT in a few scenarios.

Unless someone can attest the low-power 9800 GTs will work on a 305 W power supply, I suppose the MSI N240GT OC is the way to go. The OC capability provides some flexibility -- I could probably ramp the voltage and clockspeeds once I transfer the card to my ex-girlfriend's machine with the EarthWatts 380.

 

[happy medium]

I was answering Winterpools question not the OP's.
Sorry for the confusion.
He wanted a lower power design.
Not a 9600gt or 9800gt which both still require more power and run hotter and don't have the HD features of a gt240. And they both cost more unless your buying used.
He was comparing a 4670.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

As some may already have read, I've been looking for a cheap, low-power video card for gaming on an HDTV. I'm going to try to game at 1280x720 and let the telly upscale from there to 1080. The idea essentially is to obtain a cheap console substitute, allowing one to play comparable games on the TV. I'm reasonably certain games like Bioshock should play well at such a resolution, less sure about more recent games eg Fallout 3. My 'stretch' would be to play Dragon Age at this resolution.

Initially I'd been inclined to buy the cheap ASUS model of the Radeon HD 4670, but the rebate seems to have successfully sold out the card at both Newegg and ZipZoomfly. I did note that Newegg is selling MSI's GT 240 for $58 after coupon and rebate. Unfortunately this is the DDR3 version of the GT 240, but the benchmarks I've seen make it roughly comparable to the HD 4670. Is it a bad buy even at this price (I'm assuming, or hoping, that the negative customer review of this card was caused by a dodgy sample).

I'm also very interested in the GT 240 owing to its very low power demands. I'm thinking of testing whatever card I buy on my parents' Dell Dimension (305 W power supply) before taking it up eventually to my ex-girlfriend's machine (Antec EarthWatts 380).

Edited: I know of course the GeForce 9800 GT will make for much happier gaming, but I'm uncertain even the low-power 550 MHz version will work on the Dell's PSU. Also I'd much rather spend closer to $50 than $100, heh.

At 1280x1024 the gf's new low-profile 9600GT can play the latest games including Dragon Age and Modern Warfare 2 at max settings. A 9800GT shouldn't have any issues with 1280x720 (390,000 fewer pixels to render) at any detail settings.

What's the model of the Dell you want to put it in? Contrary to the old days, many modern Dells actually have quite capable power supplies in them.

 

[nemesismk2]

how about the radeon 4770, this video card runs very cool because it's 40nm and offers very good performance.