GeForce GT 240: Low Power, High Performance, Sub-$100

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]scrumworks[/nom]"we were told it was solidly a sub-$100 offering".http://www.cultofmac.com/wordpress [...] cePalm.jpg[/citation]
lol totally agree, should be in the 70-90 price range from ddr3 to overclocked. instead of the 85-115
 
I am buying one to use as a PhysX co-processor for my 4870X2! NOPE! Just kidding! But i was expecting better power numbers at idle and full load with the 40nm process, go figure.

And these are NOT good HTPC cards; they're still too pricey, integrated cards offer enough performance for a HTPC with less power wastes and dont forget that these cards havent offered low profile / silent options yet.
 
I am a devoted fan of Tom's hardware and have been for years but I must admit, along with others, that this article does seem a bit unbalanced in favoring nVidia. I generally applaud the articles here as I like the balance and information equally. This particular article does lend itself more to being and advertisement rather than a review. The following are items I think should be addressed by an article rewrite/update:

- Pairing up a 4670 which is in the $45-70 range against cards over $100 does seem a bit unfair.
- Using a 4670 that is not at least at its reference speeds.
- Using competitors cards that are admittedly overclocked.
- Omission of true ATI cards that would set up a proper comparison.

I realize that the 4670 was included because it does not require extra power but I don't think that is reason enough to not include other cards for basis as well. I.E - 4770, 4830, possibly 4850. Regardless of some of these cards being more difficult to find, they are genuine competition. The cards were still available at the time this article was released, so certainly they were available at the time the article was being written.
 
This card is a total waste to buy now ,it is way overpriced for the performance that offers .Its not even dx11 card.There is no reason to by this realy bad product.You can get 9600gt for just $70.How is $30 more for the same performance better?
 
I find it hard to get excited about a DX10.1 card, dont we all now agree? I mean, we had the nVidia side saying it means nothing, and now we have DX11 on the ATI side, so whats the point of this card?
Its overpriced, underperforming, isnt even compared to the competitors real price/perf here, not sure why?
nVidia has shown us nothing for awhile, and this surely doesnt deserve mention here, as we all know, DX10.1 isnt important, and just because nVidia wont have REAL mid/low end cards out for who knows how long, we shouldnt prop them up
 
dkarchon:
Well you dont take the consequence of your own analysys.
"a bit unbalanced"???
Well NV is going down. And i hope AMD/ATI will punish TH in the future.
Toms is just pathetic today.
So sorry to see an former excellent innovative site turn into shit over the years.
RIP
 
I'm pretty impressed with the power requirements of the card!
I'm generally not an NVidia fan, but I think I might like this card, because I barely ever game, and if I do, it's older games anyways.
Eyecandy tells me less than good game play!

I didn't see the performance charts, because I believe these cards are good enough to perform most games of 3 years and older; on an 800p screen,perhaps even a 1024p screen!

The only thing I don't like is that the names of Nvidia cards look all the same!
I mean,my friend's nearly 10 years old MX440 by name, looks to be faster than the GT240, won't you say?
 
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Unfortunately, we were told it was solidly a sub-$100 offering and got to see the pricing when everyone else did, after the article went live.[/citation]

Yet the title of the article still says: "GeForce GT 240: Low Power, High Performance, Sub-$100 " Shouldn't that be edited?

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]
Are we advocating paying $110 for a GT 240? Hells no. You're going to have to use your head a bit on that one. Get a 4850 instead. If it's $90, get an 8800 GT instead.But will the prices settle down after launch? History tells us they'll quickly fall to where they should to be competitive. We're saying the DDR3 GT 240 is a good deal at 4670 prices, and the GDDR5 GT 240 is a good deal at just under 9600 GT prices.If they stay too high, simply don't buy the card... not rocket science, just common sense.[/citation]

Another edit in my opinion. This should be explicitly stated in the conclusions.

It looks as though Nvidia deliberately fed false information to get the review site to post incorrect information. Probably relying on the competition between review sites trying to post their articles as early as possible instead of being thorough with their fact checking. Well, that's my opinion anyway.
 
The powerdraw graphic is a little confusing!
For the GT 240 it is not 20W total system power at idle, neither that the graphics card idling is using 20W!

I get from this that 20W is the difference between the integrated graphics card and the plug in card.

In that case the chart would be misleading, in making people believe that the card only uses 20W idle, and 86W under full load!
It may use a lot more power than a Radeon 4650!
 
Looks like nVidia released another under performing card overpriced. It looks like Toms Hardware is getting excessively biased towards nVidia. There are several fallacies in this review. Nearly all the testing benchmarks favor nVidia architecture. Its not a nuetral benchmarking suite. The Radeon card you choose is clocked under its reference and other HD4670 cards. The direct competitor in price range for the card is the HD4770.
 
[citation][nom]kettu[/nom]Yet the title of the article still says: "GeForce GT 240: Low Power, High Performance, Sub-$100 " Shouldn't that be edited?Another edit in my opinion. This should be explicitly stated in the conclusions.It looks as though Nvidia deliberately fed false information to get the review site to post incorrect information. Probably relying on the competition between review sites trying to post their articles as early as possible instead of being thorough with their fact checking. Well, that's my opinion anyway.[/citation]

I see multiple GT 240s on Newegg with 1GB at less than $100. Not sure what the problem is with regard to pricing?
 
Yeah there is a GT240 on newegg for $115. There is two 4770's for $110, a 4830 for $98, and a 4850 for $125. None of those are with rebates. Im with everyone else on how biased this review was. I get power consupion but as some have mentioned the 4770 is about dead on price and should wipe the floor with the GT240 since its almost 2x more powerful than the 4670. Rant off.
 


Because the GT240 cards tested were both overclocked with DDR5 memory (not the budget DDR3) that you're looking at. The PALIT one costs $114. I am not sure about the other.
 
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]History tells us they'll quickly fall to where they should to be competitive. We're saying the DDR3 GT 240 is a good deal at 4670 prices, and the GDDR5 GT 240 is a good deal at just under 9600 GT prices.If they stay too high, simply don't buy the card... not rocket science, just common sense.[/citation]

This would be the first time I have seen an article on TH written assuming things that have not yet happened. It is a false position to argue that a card will be competitive at some point in the future. By that time, who knows what price drops may also affect the 4670 or other cards in ATI/AMD's lineup.

Use your best graphics cards for the money series to note when a card becomes competitive. Speculating future price drops in the cards actual review, for the sake of making an accurate comparison, only serves to do the opposite and confuse readers.



 
Wish this had included an HD 4850 for reference: it's nice to know what the extra $20 is getting you.

Of course, those cards appear to be on-the-out right now (only 5 models at Newegg!) so maybe the point is just academic.
 
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]I see multiple GT 240s on Newegg with 1GB at less than $100. Not sure what the problem is with regard to pricing?[/citation]

But the reviewed Palit card isn't under $100. It's this one, right? http://tinyurl.com/yaauusv Atleast the clockspeeds seem to match.

Don't know about the Zotac one though.
 
[citation][nom]kettu[/nom]But the reviewed Palit card isn't under $100. It's this one, right? http://tinyurl.com/yaauusv Atleast the clockspeeds seem to match.Don't know about the Zotac one though.[/citation]
Thats what I have been able to find as well. The Palit card used in the review is 1gb and GDDR5 and is $114 on newegg.

The commenters who say the Palit card is under $100 are actually referring to the 1gb DDR3 or 512mb GDDR5 model and they are $89 & $97, on newegg.

Lowest price 4670 on newegg is 44.99 with MIR. The average prices of the 4670's are roughly $20-30 under the prices of the DDR3 GT240's.
Like kettu and others, I could not find any pricing info for Zotac.

Note to readers - the Palit card used in this review is NOT the sub~$100 card mentioned in the article headline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom