WOW...This Seems Like A Great Deal...

Qbah

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2005
3,754
10
81
How is it a great deal? It barely beats a HD4670 in performance that can be had for as low as 45$ AR...

Edit - not to mention there are a few 9800GTs for less as well that will kill a GT240 performance-wise to boot! :)
 
Last edited:

xenolith

Golden Member
Aug 3, 2000
1,588
0
76
What are you using for?

About the only thing I'd put this in is a low power HTPC.
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
I have heard this card isn't much faster than 9600 GT (even though it has more CUDA cores).

I would go for HD4770 if you want power efficient.
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
What you're missing is that it needs to be priced closer to $49.99-$59.99 to be a good deal considering its performance.
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
What you're missing is that it needs to be priced closer to $49.99-$59.99 to be a good deal considering its performance.

4670's average around $65 and this card is faster. Although for a little more than that 240 you can get a GTS250 which is a bit faster than a HD4850.
 

Qbah

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2005
3,754
10
81
4670's average around $65 and this card is faster. Although for a little more than that 240 you can get a GTS250 which is a bit faster than a HD4850.

So when the price debate is the other way round, you always give the lowest number for an nVidia card. Yet now you give an average price for the HD4670? You have a wonderful deal for a HD4670 that can cost HALF of the GT240 and yet you ignore it by giving an average price. By your own words - you can always find a nice promotion on a card (it was in many of your GTX260 vs HD4870 reasonings) and this GT240 is painfully overpriced for what it offers. It pretty much sucks at gaming unless you're willing to settle for low resolutions and/or medium settings (same can be said about the HD4670 btw - in terms of performance, not price).

If you want to spend 100$ for a graphics card get a 9800GT. There's also a wicked deal on a GTS250 for 100$AR with free shipping. It will destroy a GT240. And will be substantially faster than a 9800GT too. If you want a red-team card that also kills the GT240 and is on par with a 9800GT, grab this HD4830 for 90$AR. All those are so much faster than a GT240, it's not funny. Yet cost the same or even less...

If you want a HTPC card grab a HD4670 - it has similar power requirements, no need for a PCI-e power plug either (for both cards), can run at 720p just fine (med/high settings and no AA - as can the GT240) and will cost you up to HALF the price of a GT240.

The logic of buying the GT240 is non-existant - unless you're a blind follower of the "green way". In which case nothing any of us says can change your mind :)

So for the OP - yes, you missed something - namely everything. There are cards way faster from both camps for the same money. A similarly performing card from the competition can cost half the price.
 
Last edited:

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
480
126
I'm looking at this MSI gt240 for physx (with gtx260) and as a back up card. It should overclock to 850 core, 2010 shader,2340 memory! (stock is 550,1340 1800!) with overvoltage software. With that kind of overclock and gddr5 memory it should be on par with a 4770.

I'm making this choice because of the overclockability and power usage. My psu is a little weak for a card with another pci-e connector.The 9600gso and 8800/9800gt require more power.

Card on newegg....109$ shipped.

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

review...(but they give no overclocking bench numbers).:(

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/msi_gt240/3.html
 
Last edited:

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
So when the price debate is the other way round, you always give the lowest number for an nVidia card. Yet now you give an average price for the HD4670?

Was I talking to you? No!

Someone quoted a range they think the card should be. So my statement was not only accurate, but makes you look foolish in your response.

The 4670 is slow and lacks the features of a 240.

The 240 is a good card, unless of course you are a blind follower of the "red way". Then I guess you can go for a slow POS like the 4670.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
You guys aren't going to escalate this simple little question thread into a green vs. red flame/insult war are you?

Anandtech Moderator - Keysplayr
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,304
14,950
146
The 240 has to be a good deal.

It's nVidias high end DX 10.1 card! I'm mean until Fermi comes out every other green team card has either less features (DX 10, DDR3) or is slower.

As NVs highend this is a down right bargain and should really be priced around $450.




(How did I do? :) )
 
Last edited:

Qbah

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2005
3,754
10
81
Was I talking to you? No!

Someone quoted a range they think the card should be. So my statement was not only accurate, but makes you look foolish in your response.

The 4670 is slow and lacks the features of a 240.

The 240 is a good card, unless of course you are a blind follower of the "red way". Then I guess you can go for a slow POS like the 4670.

You're expressing your opinion on a public forum. Not to mention you're using double standards when giving advice about nVidia or ATi cards.

The only features the GT240 "lacks" is CUDA and PhysX. You won't run PhysX on this card anyway (not in single-card mode at least) - at most it will be a good PhysX add-on card.

Both cards are slow and not really good for gaming to begin with - so one being a tad slower than the other doesn't make a difference. You'll be running similar settings on both cards anyway.

Finally, nVidia themselves offer better cards for the same money - how does that make a GT240 good in any meaning of the word? That's right, it doesn't. The GDDR5 is there to fool people into believing this card is remotely competitive to anything else in that price-range. Unless you're comparing it to another GT240, it gets beaten badly in every imaginable scenario. You don't have to add ATi into the mix (but if you will, they offer similar performance levels for a lot less $$$).

Edit - no Keys, I'm not escalating anything, just pointing some obvious things.
 

Qbah

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2005
3,754
10
81
So no thinks the card I linked is a good buy or are you too busy flaming each other?

For PhysX (as an add-on card) OCing won't matter. Or at least it shoudn't. 110$ is very expensive if you consider there are 9800GTs for less that will give you better performance, even in PhysX. As a standalone card the picture is even worse - you will get more performance for less here, even a GTS250 that I linked to.

I mean, if you really want to spend 110$ for a card that has "GT" in the name and the number "240" - sure, get it. Otherwise I don't see any other reason for getting it.

As for your PSU, a PhysX add-on card doesn't run full power - from what I remember it hardly ramps up the power usage. So even with your 535W PSU you should be fine. You might want to read up on that a bit more though - I distinctively remember an article covering power usage in such a scenario.
 

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
480
126
Happy Medium:

What do you think?

If it overclocks like that, worth it for a back up card.....for physx should be perfect. For encoding my video's I heard its great.
For saving me money on a new power supply. Great!:D

I'd Like to try physx too. Currently looking for current and future games that I might like to run with it.

So I'm not sold just yet.:rolleyes:

Edit: If I didn't have a gtx 260 I might try a crossfire set up.
I decided to wait for the dust to settle after Christmas between Ati and Nvidia.
 
Last edited:

marcdisa

Banned
Nov 21, 2009
61
0
0
I really don't want to spend more than 60-75 bucks for a video card...and of course I want 150 buck performance! :)
 

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
480
126
For PhysX (as an add-on card) OCing won't matter. Or at least it shoudn't. 110$ is very expensive if you consider there are 9800GTs for less that will give you better performance, even in PhysX. As a standalone card the picture is even worse - you will get more performance for less here, even a GTS250 that I linked to.

I mean, if you really want to spend 110$ for a card that has "GT" in the name and the number "240" - sure, get it. Otherwise I don't see any other reason for getting it.

As for your PSU, a PhysX add-on card doesn't run full power - from what I remember it hardly ramps up the power usage. So even with your 535W PSU you should be fine. You might want to read up on that a bit more though - I distinctively remember an article covering power usage in such a scenario.[/QUOTE]

I'm planning on a q9550 upgrade @ 4.0 soon and I added another hard drive already Hopefully my next gpu upgrade to 40nm won't pull more amps then my gtx 260. Thats if the Fermi cards ever get here?
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
You're expressing your opinion on a public forum. Not to mention you're using double standards when giving advice about nVidia or ATi cards.
I applied no double standard. Go back and read it again.

The only features the GT240 "lacks" is CUDA and PhysX.
:confused: Eh?

You won't run PhysX on this card anyway (not in single-card mode at least) - at most it will be a good PhysX add-on card.
Sure you could. Maybe not at super high resolutions, but I'm sure you are not applying that double standard here.

Both cards are slow and not really good for gaming to begin with - so one being a tad slower than the other doesn't make a difference. You'll be running similar settings on both cards anyway.

Finally, nVidia themselves offer better cards for the same money - how does that make a GT240 good in any meaning of the word? That's right, it doesn't. The GDDR5 is there to fool people into believing this card is remotely competitive to anything else in that price-range. Unless you're comparing it to another GT240, it gets beaten badly in every imaginable scenario. You don't have to add ATi into the mix (but if you will, they offer similar performance levels for a lot less $$$).
If performs well for a card that averages under $100, while providing a lot of features with low power/heat/noise.
 

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
480
126
I really don't want to spend more than 60-75 bucks for a video card...and of course I want 150 buck performance! :)

For a straight up gaming video card, these guys are right, there are better choices for your buck.

What kind of power supply do you have, and what size is your monitor?
What kinds of games are you looking to play and at what price (for a new card). Mabe I can help you.

Oh yea where are you shopping?
 
Last edited:

marcdisa

Banned
Nov 21, 2009
61
0
0
I have a 550w BFG PSU....21.5 inch HP LCD monitor...primarily interested in MMOs...like Star Trek Online and Star Wars Old Republic.....shopping on new egg, amazon, or Best Buy since I might have some gift cards coming my way...
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Last edited:

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
480
126
I have a 550w BFG PSU....21.5 inch HP LCD monitor...primarily interested in MMOs...like Star Trek Online and Star Wars Old Republic.....shopping on new egg, amazon, or Best Buy since I might have some gift cards coming my way...

And your cpu? core 2 ?, x2 Athlon?