Why MSI GT 240 dropped in price? anything wrong?

[mikek753]

hi,

Looks like a good price $50. AR ($30) Mfg Part No N240GT-MD512-OC/D5
http://www.mwave.com/mwave/SkuSearch...iteria=BD11210
This is GT 240 512MB GDDR5 - not a cheaper DDR3

The rest of gt 240 $90.+

Anything wrong with this card?
I need it for HTPC - I have space for 2 slots.
How is fan? loud or not?

thanks for feedback.

 

[Rezist]

Your likely comparring DDR3 cards to DDR5 cards.

Just checked says it's DDR5, likely just not selling enough so there pumping out rebates.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

It's an MSI rebate. Good luck getting it.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The price is really $80.44 once they deny the rebate because (throws dart) "your handwriting is too blocky"

 

[mikek753]

The price is really $80.44 once they deny the rebate because (throws dart) "your handwriting is too blocky"

yes, I read that people getting 50% rebates from MSI :twisted:

but, how this card by itself?
Somehow I tend to NV side for HTPC then ATI chip due to drivers support DXVA and open CUDA that any S/W can use hardware acceleration of GPU for x.264 and etc playback / decoding - MPC-HC as example
where for ATI didn't open API and you have to stick to paid PowerDVD HD or etc and not every MKV can be offloaded to GPU

Gaming is different story ... I need it for video decoding flexebility.

 

[anand_user]

in for 3

ninja edit

 

[tcsenter]

Nothing wrong at all with the GT 240 (nor the GT 220 for that matter), its just priced a little too high.

 

[Qbah]

Nothing wrong at all with the GT 240 (nor the GT 220 for that matter), its just priced a little too high.

$50 for this card is very good imo. It's the DDR5 version. Provided you get the rebate ofc

 

[blanketyblank]

Nothing wrong at all with the GT 240 (nor the GT 220 for that matter), its just priced a little too high.

The problem is they are misleading with regards to performance. You'd expect a new GT2XX cards to have new features or performance compared to their older cards, but you'd probably be wrong. I don't even know how the models compare anymore below the 250 which is has the performance of the 8800s(some) and 9800s but was rebranded and priced for 150+. I'm just guessing here, but 240 is probably below the performance of an old 9600 since those were just a little slower than the 8800s.

 

[bryanW1995]

I've never had any problems getting rebates from msi. I hate mir's in general just like everybody else, but a little bit of anecdotal negative evidence shouldn't dissuade you from buying that card. I usually figure mir's from ALL companies as worth about 50% of the rebate; if you like that deal on that card then buy it.

 

[tcsenter]

The problem is they are misleading with regards to performance. You'd expect a new GT2XX cards to have new features or performance compared to their older cards, but you'd probably be wrong.

GT 240 supports DX10.1 with other improvements as well. You wouldn't ever attempt to infer relative performance from model numbers between two different series unless you just didn't know any better.

Is the Radeon HD 4350 faster than HD 3850 because it has a 'bigger' number? Is the HD 5650 faster than the HD 4890 because it has a 'bigger' number? Was the Radeon 9600 faster than them all because it has a 'bigger' number?

An informed user/purchaser would expect the GT 240 to fall somewhere between the GT 250 and GT 220 in performance. These cards are within the same series (GeForce 200) and their relative performance can roughly be inferred from the model numbers. No such comparison or inference can be made between products of a different series (not from ATI, not from anyone), nor is it intended.

 

[evolucion8]

GT 240 supports DX10.1 with other improvements as well. You wouldn't ever attempt to infer relative performance from model numbers between two different series unless you just didn't know any better.

Is the Radeon HD 4350 faster than HD 3850 because it has a 'bigger' number? Is the HD 5650 faster than the HD 4890 because it has a 'bigger' number? Was the Radeon 9600 faster than them all because it has a 'bigger' number?

An informed user/purchaser would expect the GT 240 to fall somewhere between the GT 250 and GT 220 in performance. These cards are within the same series (GeForce 200) and their relative performance can roughly be inferred from the model numbers. No such comparison or inference can be made between products of a different series (not from ATI, not from anyone), nor is it intended.

And an interesting feature that the lower end GTS 240 supports DX10.1 while its higher sibling like the GTS 250 or the GTX series don't.

 

[mikek753]

BTW - I can't play AvP DX11 in Win 7 with GT 240 - just DX9

 

[DaveSimmons]

BTW - I can't play AvP DX11 in Win 7 with GT 240 - just DX9

No current nVidia cards support DX_11_. You'll have to wait until March 26 for a DX11 nV card.

 

[waffleironhead]

BTW - I can't play AvP DX11 in Win 7 with GT 240 - just DX9

gt240 is a dx 10.1 card, so thats not too surprising.



OP, the price is probably dropping in preparation for a rebadge as the gt 320 or something.

 

[v8envy]

And even if it did support DX11, do you really expect a $60 card to perform well enough to matter when $150 cards struggle?

As pointed out in another thread this is basically a 9600GT (96 shader variety) on a 40nm process with DDR5 and a few minor tweaks to functionality. Now that they're finally at the $60 pricepoint they'll offer a good alternative to the venerable 4670 (and the 5570 which will replace it).

 

[SlowSpyder]

And even if it did support DX11, do you really expect a $60 card to perform well enough to matter when $150 cards struggle?

As pointed out in another thread this is basically a 9600GT (96 shader variety) on a 40nm process with DDR5 and a few minor tweaks to functionality. Now that they're finally at the $60 pricepoint they'll offer a good alternative to the venerable 4670 (and the 5570 which will replace it).

Right, the GT240 was never a bad part, it's price just didn't make sense. $60 makes this part a decent buy now.