The Test

For this review, our GT 240 cards were benchmarked using the Forceware 195.62 drivers, as our normal 190.62 drivers predate the GT 240. We have not found any significant performance differences between the two driver sets.

Also, as the performance of the GT 240 was understandably lacking at higher resolutions, we have once again used our low-resolution test suite from the GT 220 article.

CPU: Intel Core i7-920 @ 3.33GHz
Motherboard: Intel DX58SO (Intel X58)
Chipset Drivers: Intel 9.1.1.1015 (Intel)
Hard Disk: Intel X25-M SSD (80GB)
Memory: Patriot Viper DDR3-1333 3 x 2GB (7-7-7-20)
Video Cards:

ATI Radeon HD 5870
ATI Radeon HD 5850
ATI Radeon HD 5770
ATI Radeon HD 5750
ATI Radeon HD 4890
ATI Radeon HD 4870 1GB
ATI Radeon HD 4850
ATI Radeon HD 3870
ATI Radeon HD 4770
ATI Radeon HD 4670512MB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT
NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GSO-96SP
NVIDIA GeForce GT 240
NVIDIA GeForce GT 220

Video Drivers:

NVIDIA ForceWare 190.62
NVIDIA ForceWare 195.62
ATI Catalyst Beta 8.66
ATI Catalyst Beta 8.66.6
ATI Catalyst 9.9

OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit

Meet the EVGA 512MB GDDR5 Superclocked Crysis: Warhead
Comments Locked

55 Comments

View All Comments

  • BelardA - Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - link

    Anyone notice any lack of SLI on these cards? Of course they are soooo slow.

    Okay, the ATI 4670 (DX 10.1) came out over a year ago with an MSRP of $90~100. Considering the age, its about the same wattage and noise as the GT240 and in many cases, its a slower card.

    Why bother even making such a card? Other than the profit sold from a $90 GT240 is much better than a $90 9800GT.... except nobody in their right mind would bother with a GT240

    If the GT240 was a $65~80 part, nobody would complain.

    But what happens when ATI releases their $100 5600 series cards? Since the 5700s are pretty much on par with the 4800s. I'm not expecting the 5600s to be that exciting. Other than being $100 DX11 cards that are faster than 4670s but maybe around 4830 performance.
  • Penti - Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - link

    OEMs, OEMs would.
  • BelardA - Thursday, January 7, 2010 - link

    Yeah yeah, I know. OEMS love such things.

    Kind of sick to look at ordering forms on sites like Dell. When a basic desktop has a default price... add something like a ATI 4670 or GT240 and the price goes up $150. Apple is the WORST with their quad-SLI setup with GT120 (I think) video cards... wow, 4 slow cards at about $150 a pop! While on the same Apple order form, a single $200 ATI 4870 is available and should be faster.

  • aegisofrime - Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - link

    I might be nitpicking, but you have listed all the ASUS results as "nVidia Geforce GT 240" instead of "ASUS Geforce GT 240" in the charts. :p
  • Ryan Smith - Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - link

    For the performance data, that is correct. Not to slight Asus of course, but their cards are stock cards. Hence they're the reference values I'm using for the GT 240, and are listed as such.
  • aegisofrime - Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - link

    Ah I see. Thanks for the clarification!
  • lopri - Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - link

    Thank you Ryan for this excellent review. It's refreshing to read a sensible piece without personal drama and baseless conspiracy theories.
  • Devo2007 - Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - link

    Might want to fix the power charts as they currently list an NVidia Geforce 4870 X2 card. Unless of course that is how they have decided to compete with ATI (rebranding Radeons). :)
  • korbendallas - Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - link

    The load temperature graph has to be wrong - there's no way two cards with the same cooler and the same power consumption has such a difference in temperature.
  • korbendallas - Wednesday, January 6, 2010 - link

    Oh, the fan is bugged out... nevermind :)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now