GT 240 benchmarked, ~9600GT performance

[saaya]

http://en.expreview.com/2009/10/10/n...s-surface.html

not bad... in vantage it performs about as good as 4850 and gts250!
in 2k6 it falls behind both however, and the gap widens as the resolution increases...

im surprised though, it seems that the performance per sp is notably better than g92 and even better than gt200?

the boost from gddr3 to gddr5 is about as big as a 100mhz gpu and 250mhz sp clock boost... so maybe its just a boost from going gddr5?

hmmmmm

[Warboy]

I know about GDDR3/GDDR4/GDDR5 but wth is SDDR3?

[saaya]

ok, lets compare apples to apples, as much as we can with those numbers...



G92b is 11%, 26% and 28% faster than gt240.
but G92b has 11% higher gpu and shader clocks... PLUS 25% more cores!
performance doesnt scale linearily with increased clocks, lets see how gt240 scales...

doubling the bandwidth results in a 15% boost... not much, but most of it probably isnt needed and it stops scaling properly after a 30% bw boost.

we only have gddr3 to gddr5 numbers so we can only conclude that the other results from overclocking the gpu and shader cores show the best case scaling if memory bandwidth is not an issue.

for a 15% boost in gpu and shader processor clocks we get an 11% boost in performance... IF, there is enough bandwidth per shader processor.
so roughly, for every 1.36% increase in gpu and shader processor clocks we get 1% more performance.

so a gts240 at 600/1500, the same clocks as a G92b 9800gt, would score around 8% higher than it does at 550/1340. IF there is enough bandwidth... since thats not the case at 1800mhz gddr3 for the G92b, we shouldnt give the gt2400 enough bw either if we want to compare them clock for clock. so lets assume gt240 only gains 6% instead of 8% performance by clocking it 11% higher to the same clocks as the G92b in a 9800gt.

vantage 1920x1200
gt 240 g215 550/1340/1800 gddr3 4728
gt 240 g215 600/1500/1800 gddr3 5011~
9800gt g92b 600/1500/1800 gddr3 5344

still slower, but only 6% slower than G92b while having 25% less shader cores... not bad at all but then again, we dont know into how much of a performance boost 25% more shader cores would translate, even IF bandwidth wouldnt be limiting... it definately wouldnt be 25%... so gt240 does have a higher clock per clock per shader core per bandwidth performance than G92... but i suspect a cut down gt200 to the same specs would probably perform the same... so there doesnt seem to be a notable boost from gt200 to gt215

2k6 1280x1024
gt 240 g215 550/1340/1800 gddr3 8529
gt 240 g215 600/1500/1800 gddr3 9040~
9800gt g92b 600/1500/1800 gddr3 11535

overclocking gpu and shader cores by 11% results in the same 8% boost here, with enough bw, so lets again assume a 6% boost. in this case gt240s increase in clockspeed to G92b 9800gt levels barely helps, and its still 20% slower than a 9800GT... so my guess is that in this bench shader cores are the limiting factor, and if the gt240 had 25% more shader cores it would probably perform exactly the same as a 9800gt.

2k6 1920x1200
gt 240 g215 550/1340/1800 gddr3 6785
gt 240 g215 600/1500/1800 gddr3 7192~
9800gt g92b 600/1500/1800 gddr3 9487

same as above...
in this case a higher clocked gt240 is even 24% behind a 9800gt at identical clocks.

gt240 doesnt really show any signs of rework done to the sps that would boost performanc enotably. there is a slight boost compared to G92 in vantage, but my guess is that its rather caused by supporting dx10.1 which results in slightly improved efficiency when dealing with complex code?

while gt240 is derived from gt200, it seems that the improvements from g92 to gt200 dont seem to have a notable impact on performance. as a matter of fact, the performance per clockspeed per shader core per bandwidth seems to be almost identical between g92 and gt200?

so to sum it up: gt240 = cut down G92 (hello 2007!) in 40nm with dx10.1 and gddr5

the increased bandwith of gddr5 seems to be good for an up to 15%, and if applicable, dx10.1 will give it up to a 25% performance boosts, as seen with ati vgas. but this seems to only make up for the reduced shader cores compared to g92... and in all scenarios even both of those features wont help gt240 to overcome its grandfather, the 9800gt... :/

its not a slow card though, and for casual gamers this card is good enough...
my guess is that nvidia will replace the gts250... i wouldnt recommend it though, a gts250 seems like a better deal tbh... and nvidia isnt even trying to convince anybody otherwise, calling it a gt240, clearly positioning it below the gts250.

its pretty obvious that this card was supposed to compete with the 4850 in oem space... but the 4850 is about to go eol and a sticker reading "supports directx 10.1" isnt exactly going to help oems sell their machines with dx11 out...

depending on the price, it might still be a good card for casual gamers... but providing the price is the same as a gts250 id rather recommend a gts250 or spend a little extra and get a gtx260...

[saaya]

I know about GDDR3/GDDR4/GDDR5 but wth is SDDR3?

i think it can use regular desktop ddr3, which is cheaper than gddr3...

[zanzabar]

a real midrange part its only what a years late, whats the power consumption

[zalbard]

Not so close... Price?

[LightSpeed]

DX10.1...meh

[zalbard]

DX10.1...meh

More like "Nvidia... meh" these days, since ATI isn't dealing with new DX 10.1 cards anymore.

[gurusan]

nvidia, the large sack of fail

[Jamesrt2004]

this is kina not impressing at all :/.... whats up with them these days.

[Luka_Aveiro]

this is kina not impressing at all :/.... whats up with them these days.

What did you want? GTX260 performance on a 90$ card?

[N19h7m4r3]

What did you want? GTX260 performance on a 90$ card?

Actually yes!

Nvidia havent released a proper midrange since the 7900's.

I don't even count the 8600's since they were beat in somecases by the older and cheaper 79xx series.

I've yet to own a single mid range card since my 6600GT simply because there wasn't much in terms of a decent performing midrange when I went to upgrade.

[Luka_Aveiro]

Actually yes!

Nvidia havent released a proper midrange since the 7900's.

*cof* 8800GT *cof*

[N19h7m4r3]

*cof* 8800GT *cof*

That's not a midrange. That's just a single card. Also how long did it take to even come out?

By that stage everyone either had a 8800GTS or the GTX.
If not Nvidia, they were still running x1900's.

[Farinorco]

What did you want? GTX260 performance on a 90$ card?

If it's 90$, it will depend on the final price and final performance of HD5750 if this GT240 is a reasonable deal. HD5770 it's going to be HD4870 (maybe a little more) performance at 160$, so HD5750 can be around HD4850 performance at a little more than 100$ (maybe ~120$? price of HD5750 was much more inespecific in AMD papers). Then, AMD parts are DirectX 11 compliant.

So if a 9800GT is 20-30% slower than a 9800GT with only DirectX10.1 support and at a 90$ price tag, it may not be so a great option...

*cof* 8800GT *cof*

That's not midrange. I don't remember about other countries, but in Spain it was launched at around 250€ (HD4870 was 265€ at launch). That's high end. Not ultra extreme enthusiast, but high end.

[cowie]

Actually yes!

Nvidia havent released a proper midrange since the 7900's.

I don't even count the 8600's since they were beat in somecases by the older and cheaper 79xx series.

I've yet to own a single mid range card since my 6600GT simply because there wasn't much in terms of a decent performing midrange when I went to upgrade.

the 79's beat ALL the 86's,it was the 76's that the 86's replaced and sometimes beat (but mostly tied).
sadly thuo it was the 76's that herald in the 128 bit bus over the 256 bit bus on the 68gs.

the market is no longer low mid high but every 20-40 dollars there is different cards,but in th states the 88gt=180$ which was upper midrage not highend the gts640 was 270$ gtx was even more.

getting back to this card,it should hold its own agianst the ati equelivent np.

[saaya]

What did you want? GTX260 performance on a 90$ card?

what kind of a question is that? of course!

but just fyi, gts250, a full blown G92 can be had for as little as 110$ on newegg... and thats before the gt240 is even released, prices will fall after that... so really, why would anybody pay the same or slightly less for a cut down G92? just cause it has dx10.1?

i think nvidia has finally opened their can of whoop4ss!
unfortunately for nvidia, they werent aware that they arent the only ones that rebrand



teh cans, theyre empty... :,(

[zsamz_]

they shoulda just renamed the 8800gt again oops 8800gs

[Farinorco]

the 79's beat ALL the 86's,it was the 76's that the 86's replaced and sometimes beat (but mostly tied).
sadly thuo it was the 76's that herald in the 128 bit bus over the 256 bit bus on the 68gs.

the market is no longer low mid high but every 20-40 dollars there is different cards,but in th states the 88gt=180$ which was upper midrage not highend the gts640 was 270$ gtx was even more.

getting back to this card,it should hold its own agianst the ati equelivent np.

8800GT was 180$ at launch? Wow. Usually we have higher prices here (conversion $ to € usually is more or less equal, some little less € than $, but the other way around, never... except this case, as far as I see).

In Spain, 8800GTS 320 was about 265€ (before the 8800GT release), 8800GTS 640 around 350€, and obviously 8800GTX more (near 500€). All of them high end, obviously (Thats what 8800 meant, 8600 was midrange -and fairly overpriced one, have to say-, and 8400/8500 low end).

**************************

Mmmm, I have understood the prices of HD5750. It seems that the prices are 109$ for the 512MB version, and 129$ for the 1GB version. So if there is a 109$ version of the HD5750, I don't think a DX10.1 card with 20-30% less performance than 9800GT can do very well without a wide enough price difference.

**************************

EDIT: I'm looking for info about the MSRP at launch time of 8800GT, and most of the info I find says about $259 (the most frequent one), $249, $269...

That's way more similar to what I remember.

[gurusan]

9600GT was a good midrange card. in SLI they owned

[saaya]

Mmmm, I have understood the prices of HD5750. It seems that the prices are 109$ for the 512MB version, and 129$ for the 1GB version. So if there is a 109$ version of the HD5750, I don't think a DX10.1 card with 20-30% less performance than 9800GT can do very well without a wide enough price difference.

yes, even the faster gddr5 version is slower than a 9800gt... and fyi luka aveiro, i just checked on newegg and there are 9800gt cards for 89$... so where does the gt 240 fit in? its slower than a 9800gt but will cost about the same... cause it has dx10.1? when new games are going to be dx11? that makes no sense...

and yes, 8800gt arrived very late in 2007 iirc?
close to christmas time, and in very low numbers... as a result the price went to 250E and even higher... it later went to 200E which is more mainstream but still a tad expensive... i think 150E is the real mainstream...

[Jowy Atreides]

what's up with this card?

it's about a year late and even a year ago it wouldn't be appealing

9600gt respin/brand?

[v_rr]

What did you want? GTX260 performance on a 90$ card?

No, a HD 5870 performance on a 350$ card

Palhaço

[saaya]

9600GT was a good midrange card. in SLI they owned

well, look at the benchmarks again... the 9600gt IS a good card... it beats the gt 240 in all 3 runs

[Boissez]

Hmm it's basicly an equivalent to the 4770 both in terms of power/features and wattage (i suppose) ... But it's supposed to go against the hd5750/5770? Good luck...