X

    Subscribe to New Ads!

    Receive weekly ads in your inbox!



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 61

Thread: GT 240 benchmarked, ~9600GT performance

  1. #1
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Shipai
    Posts
    34,647

    GT 240 benchmarked, ~9600GT performance

    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

  2. #2
    The Doctor Warboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    2,597
    I know about GDDR3/GDDR4/GDDR5 but wth is SDDR3?
    My Rig can do EpicFLOPs, Can yours?
    Once this baby hits 88 TeraFLOPs, You're going to see some serious $@#%....

    Build XT7 is currently active.
    Current OS Systems: Windows 10 64bit

  3. #3
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Shipai
    Posts
    34,647
    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...
    Last edited by saaya; 10-11-2009 at 04:27 AM.

  4. #4
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Shipai
    Posts
    34,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Warboy View Post
    I know about GDDR3/GDDR4/GDDR5 but wth is SDDR3?
    i think it can use regular desktop ddr3, which is cheaper than gddr3...

  5. #5
    I am Xtreme zanzabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SF bay area, CA
    Posts
    15,782
    a real midrange part its only what a years late, whats the power consumption
    5930k, R5E, samsung 8GBx4 d-die, vega 56, wd gold 8TB, wd 4TB red, 2TB raid1 wd blue 5400
    samsung 840 evo 500GB, HP EX 1TB NVME , CM690II, swiftech h220, corsair 750hxi

  6. #6
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    8,832
    Not so close... Price?
    Donate to XS forums
    Quote Originally Posted by jayhall0315 View Post
    If you are really extreme, you never let informed facts or the scientific method hold you back from your journey to the wrong answer.

  7. #7
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    577
    DX10.1...meh
    i7 920@4.34 | Rampage II GENE | 6GB OCZ Reaper 1866 | 8800GT (zzz) | Corsair AX750 | Xonar Essence ST w/ 3x LME49720 | HiFiMAN EF2 Amplifier | Shure SRH840 | EK Supreme HF | Thermochill PA 120.3 | MCP355 | XSPC Reservoir | 3/8" ID Tubing

    Phenom 9950BE @ 3400/2000 (CPU/NB) | Gigabyte MA790GP-DS4H | HD4850 | 4GB Corsair DHX @850 | Corsair TX650W | T.R.U.E Push-Pull

    E2160 @3.06 | ASUS P5K-Pro | BFG 8800GT | 4GB G.Skill @ 1040 | 600W Tt PP

    A64 3000+ @2.87 | DFI-NF4 | 7800 GTX | Patriot 1GB DDR @610 | 550W FSP

  8. #8
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    8,832
    Quote Originally Posted by LightSpeed View Post
    DX10.1...meh
    More like "Nvidia... meh" these days, since ATI isn't dealing with new DX 10.1 cards anymore.
    Donate to XS forums
    Quote Originally Posted by jayhall0315 View Post
    If you are really extreme, you never let informed facts or the scientific method hold you back from your journey to the wrong answer.

  9. #9
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    746
    nvidia, the large sack of fail
    || 2500K @ 5GHz 1 thread, 4.8 2 threads, 4.7 3, 4.6 4 1.284V ||
    || P8P67-M Pro || 8GB @ 2133MHz ||
    || 5850 @ 1000/1225 || XFX 650W || Silverstone FT03B ||
    || 37" LCD TV || CM Hyper 212+ || Samsung 2.1 Soundbar ||

  10. #10
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    3,431
    this is kina not impressing at all :/.... whats up with them these days.
    "Cast off your fear. Look forward. Never stand still, retreat and you will age. Hesitate and you will die. SHOUT! My name is…"
    //James

  11. #11
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesrt2004 View Post
    this is kina not impressing at all :/.... whats up with them these days.
    What did you want? GTX260 performance on a 90$ card?
    Are we there yet?

  12. #12
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Curragh.
    Posts
    1,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by N19h7m4r3 View Post
    Actually yes!

    Nvidia havent released a proper midrange since the 7900's.
    *cof* 8800GT *cof*
    Are we there yet?

  14. #14
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Curragh.
    Posts
    1,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro View Post
    *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.

  15. #15
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Madrid (Spain)
    Posts
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro View Post
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro View Post
    *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.
    Last edited by Farinorco; 10-11-2009 at 03:19 AM.

  16. #16
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    1,101
    Quote Originally Posted by N19h7m4r3 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by cowie; 10-11-2009 at 03:31 AM.
    _________________

  17. #17
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Shipai
    Posts
    34,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro View Post
    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... :,(
    Last edited by saaya; 10-12-2009 at 05:52 AM.

  18. #18
    Dave's Mentor!
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    montreal
    Posts
    5,217
    they shoulda just renamed the 8800gt again oops 8800gs

    maximus IV extreme gtx580
    gigabut p67-ud7
    p67 sabertooth
    2500k+2600k
    antec 1200watt
    EVGA classified 760
    920 Batch# 3849B018 4.985ghz@1.52v gtx285 ftw sli
    OCZ3RPR1866LV6GK hypers
    dfi ut p35 rampage extreme
    gigabut p35c-ds3r bios suks
    gigabut x38-d6q dead thank god
    ballistix 8500 1240mhz@2.02v

  19. #19
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Madrid (Spain)
    Posts
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by cowie View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Farinorco; 10-11-2009 at 04:03 AM.

  20. #20
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    746
    9600GT was a good midrange card. in SLI they owned
    || 2500K @ 5GHz 1 thread, 4.8 2 threads, 4.7 3, 4.6 4 1.284V ||
    || P8P67-M Pro || 8GB @ 2133MHz ||
    || 5850 @ 1000/1225 || XFX 650W || Silverstone FT03B ||
    || 37" LCD TV || CM Hyper 212+ || Samsung 2.1 Soundbar ||

  21. #21
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Shipai
    Posts
    34,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Farinorco View Post
    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...
    Last edited by saaya; 10-11-2009 at 04:11 AM.

  22. #22
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,176
    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?

  23. #23
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro View Post
    What did you want? GTX260 performance on a 90$ card?
    No, a HD 5870 performance on a 350$ card

    Palhaço
    Quote Originally Posted by Shintai View Post
    And AMD is only a CPU manufactor due to stolen technology and making clones.

  24. #24
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Shipai
    Posts
    34,647
    Quote Originally Posted by gurusan View Post
    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

  25. #25
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    371
    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...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •