Discussion in 'Reviews' started by W1zzard, Nov 16, 2009.
To read this review go to: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_GT_240/
Sweet review w1zzard
Shame this card costs more than the 9800GT though It would be sweet for folding if it was cheaper. I might get one as a backup card if the price drops enough say £50 if I'm lucky.
Seems like a real waste, considering the 9600GT is cheaper and performs better. Power consumption is amazing though. Hopefully prices go down quickly.
I'm just left scratching my head really, sometimes the performance is really quite strong, and sometimes (more often) its sub 9600GT.
The price really needs to settle and it should find a comfortable spot, if that's something that they can do.
I beleive the price is justified for what you get. Would work great in HTPC setup with slightly better gaming then the HD4670, although some would opt to go the cheaper route. Also would work with all motherboards for Audio over HDMI, no longer needing an onboard SPDIF header for passthrough. I feel this card is a win-win situation for those who purchase it.
I think a lot of this might be drivers as well, hopefully some driver optimizations will improve performance.
And I agree about the price, needs to be sub-$90 IMO. A 9800GT stomps this and is only $99. Obviously performance isn't everything, but generally cards are priced by how they perform.
price vs performance is really what it comes down to these days.
sprinkle on a few features and you've got yourself a cake.
Thanks for review ,i wish msi had been send ddr3 model for comparing both cards. Card is under 9600GT most of the time as i expected but it is head to head with 1Gb gts250 at crysis .I guess card has some kind driver problems it is behind gt220 and 9500gt at quake4 1920 *1200 dont look normal.
quake 4 1920 doesn't look right indeed. i'll rebench asap, but might be a while... working on the reviews for tomorrow's nda right now
Nice power consumption, but still doesn't justify the high price.... a little more than HD 4670 would look right.
I envy you far too often W1z.
its a htpc card from the look, needs to be 30 dollars cheaper to be even somewhat competitive.
yep .. today: no breakfast, lunch at 4 pm, nonstop working to get the gt 240 review done. now that that is over, work on more reviews, maybe get a light dinner at 10 or 11 .. then work till 3 .. then get up at 6 to post the reviews
I stand by what I said, I'd give up meals, sleep, and possibly body parts to be sent hardware early to review it, not that I'd do as good a job, of course.
secondly, OMG W1z replied directly to me
Very impressive power consumption for the performance, but terrible pricing at the moment.
A suggestion from the reviews, on obvious failures like using this card to play a game at any sort of current resolution on certain games, can you add a red line to the bottom of the cards highlighted bars on the graph to show that it isn't recommended. Perhaps some of our non-engrish speaking users would benefit from knowing that because the card does have the best performance per $ at 1920X1200 doesn't mean that they should go buy it thinking they will have a great gaming experience at 12FPS
For example if I were to think that a GTX285 is a worse buy........
Well, I'm sure you get the idea.
the graph isnt sorted by performance so you cant draw a "playable" cutoff line
Then maybe add a recommended use for the cards? Just a quick reference for those with more limited english vocabulary. I only mention as I have seen some of the charts thrown around, and taken out of context they can really change the meaning and demolish the credibility of your reviews.
If not no big deal, the majority of the user base seems to have a decent understanding.
I think he's meaning adding a red line to the bottom of each card's individual bar if it's not playable. Still, though -- what's "playable?"
I remember playing Halo at 20fps with my Radeon 9200SE back in the day. It was definitely "playable," it just looked like shit!
That being said -- the power draw on this card is absolutely stunning. 40nm chips sure sip the juice.
sounds about right. Seems this card should be more for utility than hardcore gaming performance.
OK, show of hands. How many were hoping for a 40nm version of the 9800GT instead of this 9600GSO, 9600GT, 9500GT mutated hybrid with GDDR5? I pity those who mistakenly pick up the GDDR3 version.:shadedshu
Hands in lap. I'm hoping for a 40nm DX11 card from Nvidia. I just don't see a point with this card.
I dont get it... why dont they make a 40nm version of the 9800GT? Arguably one of their most successful cores.
How does this card beat the GTS 250 and a 4850 in Crysis in lower resolutions? Are the drivers better or something?
yes it seems in the case of crysis there is a huge improvement by the driver version. i verified crysis twice and the numbers are correct
Separate names with a comma.