GT 240: DDR3 or DDR5?

[Cattykit]

By now, you're probably thinking why the hell would someone want to buy GT 240. Well, here are my reasons.

1. I need GPU for 2d, NLE graphics needs and more and more applications are using CUDA. So, for now I'm stuck with nvidia cards.

2. Though I've been a fan of 3D fps games since Wolfenstein, nowadays I only game when big titles come out (haven't played a single game for a year until Modern Warfare 2 came out.)

3. I'm into power-saving so GT 220, 240 series is quite a great cards for my needs but it's just not that easy.

It's not easy because though I'm stuck with low performing card like GT 240, I want the one that performs the best. For that matter, I'm wondering which one would be better out of below two:

1. GT 240, 512mb GDDR5
2. GT 240, 1024mb GDDR3

 

[Farfrumhumpn]

The GDDR5 card should pull a couple watts less and by a couple I mean 1 - 3 tops. The GDDR5 card should also decently outperform the GDDR3 card.

 

[bryanW1995]

I have two words for you: no. no.

 

[cbn]

By now, you're probably thinking why the hell would someone want to buy GT 240. Well, here are my reasons.

1. I need GPU for 2d, NLE graphics needs and more and more applications are using CUDA. So, for now I'm stuck with nvidia cards.

2. Though I've been a fan of 3D fps games since Wolfenstein, nowadays I only game when big titles come out (haven't played a single game for a year until Modern Warfare 2 came out.)

3. I'm into power-saving so GT 220, 240 series is quite a great cards for my needs but it's just not that easy.

It's not easy because though I'm stuck with low performing card like GT 240, I want the one that performs the best. For that matter, I'm wondering which one would be better out of below two:

1. GT 240, 512mb GDDR5
2. GT 240, 1024mb GDDR3

GT 240 512mb GDDR5 has 96 stream processors and 128 bit right? If so that strikes me as a pretty balanced card and probably the equivalent of HD4770.

I wouldn't get the GDDR3 version for gaming.

 

[Cattykit]

The thing is that when I play Modern Warfare 2 on GT 220 1GB, I see video ram usage going all the way up to 808mb at 1600x1024 resoltion. If I go for 512mb GDDR5 version, wouldn't it cause a slow-down?

 

[bamacre]

What about the newer version of the 9800 GT? It doesn't even need a 6pin power connector. And it comes in a 1GB flavor...

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...tCode=10011043

I'm not sure what performance is like for the GT 240 vs the 9800 GT, but maybe someone can chime in.

Thread about it here...
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2027474

 

[nemesismk2]

I want to see which would win between Geforce DDR5 240 GT and Radeon 4770.

 

[Denithor]

GT 240 with GDDR5 is a little better than the old 8800GS/9600GSO (1st gen) - so a small step below the 8800GT/9800GT.

GT 240 with DDR3 just plain sucks. 128-bit memory interface with 900MHz ram = severe bandwidth constriction. Which was the primary problem with the 8800GS to begin with. Stay away!

 

[BernardP]

I have read all the GT240 reviews (sorry, links are at home), and the 512 MB GDDR5 version is much faster than the 1 GB DDR3 version. Simply put, the GT240 with 128 bit memory was designed for GDDR5. Going with less is a compromise. And incredibly, the GDDR5 version can sell for no more, or very little more, than DDR3 version. Three examples:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...t+240&x=9&y=34

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...+240&x=14&y=33

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...+240&x=10&y=26

 

[Keysplayr]

If MW2 uses 808MB at your settings, then I think getting a 512MB card could be a mistake. It might make higher framerates, but it the gameplay as smooth due to less HDD thrashing? I dunno, I haven't tried either.

 

[Zap]

What about the newer version of the 9800 GT? It doesn't even need a 6pin power connector. And it comes in a 1GB flavor...
...
I'm not sure what performance is like for the GT 240 vs the 9800 GT, but maybe someone can chime in.

9800 GT low power version uses about twice the power of the GT 240 even though it doesn't need the extra power connector. It does outperform the GT 240 for sure. I don't remember what the difference was, but if anyone wants to know I can probably find out once I get back to work on Monday.

 

[BernardP]

Here is a review that compares GT240 DDR3 1GB, DDR5 512MB and DDR5 1GB:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...t-DirectX-101-graphics-card-reviewed/Reviews/

AFAIK, only Palit makes a 1GB DDR5 version.

 

[BenSkywalker]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gt-240,2475-19.html

Seems to me even when power is a major concern the 9600GT would still be the better choice. That particular board Tom's is testing doesn't even appear to be a low power model of the 9600GT. The 240s are better at idle, but are either only barely better to flat out losing at load versus the 9600GT in terms of power useage, and the 9600GT is quite a bit faster and quite a bit cheaper. The GT240 right now is just a terrible part.

 

[BernardP]

I agree the GT240 is too expensive for its gaming performance. It has however 2 advantages: no external power connector; shorter lenght card that will fit in about any system.

This Asus low-power version of the 9600GT is really interesting: great cooler and shorter than the regular version:

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=2399

It's becoming harder to find on the market, though.