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

Page 5 - 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.
So, Apple turns into a cell phone and personal music player company, ATI turns into a gaming GPU company, Nvidia turns into a workstation only GPU company, and Microsoft/Matrox stay the same?

If they had the balls to make a 4770 with no external power connector (newer versions don't need it), and the prices went to $99, then this would be nothing more than a steaming pile of crap. Otherwise, I guess it works as a replacement for a 4670.
 
Cleeve - Don't you at least agree that the title of the article is in itself misleading and false? At least as far as the Palit 1gb GDDR5 card is concerned, you are not reviewing a sub-100 card. It has been proven that the card you are reviewing is clearly above the $100 price point.

Could you also explain why accurate ATI/AMD comparison cards were not used? The 4670 is near half the price of the GT240 while the 4770 is exactly at the price point of the GT240.

Included in Review - GT240 @ $114
NOT-Included for comparison - 4770 @ $109
 
Is it me or do I see Nvidia going the way of 3DFX. The tell tale sings are there such as lack of knowledge of market conditions, slow adoption of new technologies and uncompetitive pricing. Like others have asked I really would like to know if they forgot that such a thing as the green edition 9800GT exists? The manufacturing process on the 240 maybe new but it still feels like the spare part scenario mentioned before holds true.
 
[citation][nom]dkArchon[/nom]Cleeve - Don't you at least agree that the title of the article is in itself misleading and false?[/citation]

Nope. I'll agree that the article is somewhat forward-looking as far as the inevitable competitive pricing is concerned. But I did mention that in the conclusion, that at-launch pricing is often unrealistically high. This should settle down fairly quickly.

Why are you concerned with the 4770? At $110, the 4850 is the card to get.
And you're forgetting that the 8800 GT already blows the GT 240 away at $90, so the GT 240 has to become available below this point to be relevant.

The benchmarks make it obvious that the 8800 GT is faster, so how is the article misleading? I can't hold everyone's hand to the local computer store, but the data is all there. it makes it pretty clear that the 8800 GT is much faster, so common sense should make it pretty obvious that at the same price, the 8800 GT is the way to go.
 
Hmmm... Most things said above are very valid, but it's no use of saying that this is not so good as old 9600 and so on. All those older cards are phasing out, because they will cost more to manufacture than these new models like 240. So all the older cars are going to be better value for the money as long as you can buy them! But after that you have to rely on these never models (they will come down in price after the old stock has been sold out.)

Then to real critisism. These budged cards should be tested considering the price range as has been said. Now there is $115 240 compared to much cheaper alternative. I am sure that we would like to see real $100 version compared to ATI $100 40nm card if possible. The problem with much better 4850 is allso that it's phasing out of market as soon as ATI can get more of these cheaper to produce 40nm variants to the market.
To the "bang for the buck" customers these previous generation cards are allmost allways a better deal just after the release of the next generation. (It's like finding a good couple of years old movie from sale box compared to not so good just released movie from the "latest" shelf 🙂 But that kind of new generation comparison would reveal what the situation will be in a couple of months later, when old stuff have been cleaned of from the shelfs.
 
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom] Why are you concerned with the 4770? At $110, the 4850 is the card to get. And you're forgetting that the 8800 GT already blows the GT 240 away at $90, so the GT 240 has to become available below this point to be relevant.[/citation]

My concern was in regards to showing comparable ATI/AMD cards in comparison to nVidia. The 4670 is woefully not the best ATI/AMD has to offer as far as competition/price going against the GT240.

 
[citation][nom]dkArchon[/nom]...The 4670 is woefully not the best ATI/AMD has to offer as far as competition/price going against the GT240.[/citation]

True, but when the article was written THIS WAS NOT KNOWN, and prices were allegedly going to be in line with the 4670 (What was MSRP?). Maybe Cleeve jumped the gun, but also vendor pricing is making nVidia look stupid. The FAIL horn must be so loud it's hard to tell from where the noise is coming (or if more than one is blowing).
 
another thing i would have liked to see was the overclock. because its on the PCIe bus, and is already drawing 70w at load, there seems to be very little headroom in terms of power with no 6pin
 
Should've read Marcus' article...

I’m not a huge fan of running overclocking numbers on vendor-supplied launch samples for fairly obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

While that may be taken a bit out of context, I do recall past articles where overclocked cards that are being put against reference cards are downclocked to reference speeds usually.
 
Cleeve is an idiot, or most of us are............
or there is something green with some green $$ involved in this.......
 
yea its a sub $100 card... what do you expect... its designed to be low power and used in people acers and hp's with 300w psu's looking for a bit more bang and for that buck why not lol
 
"GeForce GT 240: Low Power, High Performance, Sub-$100"

Excuse me??? Did you just say the words High performance and gt 240 in the same title? That must be a major oxymoron.
 
This GT240 is $95~120... not impressive against the 4770 or 4850... at $120, it approaches 5750 pricig ($140~160)

ATI is starting to develop a pricing problem.

The 4800s are running out of stock. Last month, the 4850s were going for $90~110 with 4870s going for $120~140. As of NOV 19 - the 4850s are $140+ OUCH!

The 5750s are $145 and 5770s are $165~190... the inventory is becoming stable which means the pricing should start going down a bit.

But ATI needs the 5400~5600s to come in at the $50 / $75 / $95 price points. Current Market pricing for ATI:
$30 = 4350
$45 = 4550
$65~100 = 4670 ($65~80 are worth while because...)
$105 = 4770
$145 = 5750 (really needs to be $120... will be by JAN~FEB I bet)
$165 = 5770
$200 = 4790
$300 = 5850 (NO STOCK)
$400 = 5870 (NO STOCK)

Huge hole between 5770 & 5850... so hopefully we'll see a $200 5830 card.
 
none of this matter!
9800GT green edition
NO extra power connector. almost 9800GT performance. gt240 price
 
Don't understand why there's even a debate about the value of this card. For the offering price, this card HAS NO value! And that fact should have been the main point of the article. TH is not looking out for the hardware enthusiast community.
 


They are coming in the early spring. Then ATI will have full range of DX11 cards from low end to the high end...
 
That should read "Gt 240 for "LUNCH""

I'm sure the red team are snacking on these after the 5970 launch.
 
This is great card and GDDR5 version is comparable to GT9600/GT9800

- without being power hog
- 40nm technology
- hardware acceleration support for DivX/XviD
- excellent support in Linux VDPAU and MacOS

And nobody even noticed new improved PureVideHD version 4 VP4
I agree on the price though. It needs to go $10-$15 down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom