NVIDIA’s GeForce GT 240: The Card That Doesn't Matter
by Ryan Smith on January 6, 2010 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Meet the EVGA 512MB GDDR5 Superclocked
For their GT 240 sample, EVGA sent along their GT 240 Superclocked edition. This card has a stock core and shader clock speed of 550MHz and 1340MHz respectively, while the memory has been pre-overclocked from 3400MHz to 3588MHz, a roughly 5% memory overclock. Notably, EVGA usually overclocks the GPU along with the memory on their Superclocked cards – but given the initial 70W TDP, we’re not surprised to see the GPU stock-clocked in order to keep the card within the 75W PCIe power specification. The RAM chips are the same 4000MHz Samsung chips that we’ve seen on the Asus cards.
Unlike Asus, EVGA has gone for a true single-slot design for the GT 240. A single-wide aluminum heatsink covers the card, with a small fan embedded in a blower configuration. Like the Asus design, this cooler only comes in to contact with the GPU and not the RAM chips. The card measures at 7.5” long, in order to fit the electronics components around the single-slot cooler.
The port configuration is the same as on the Asus cards and the GT 240: 1 HDMI, 1 VGA, and 1 DVI.
Since this is a factory-overclocked card, the MSRP is higher than the normal GT 240 MSRP. EVGA lists the card at $120 on their site, but we’ve seen it for $99 after rebate, putting it only a few dollars more than most GDDR5 GT 240s.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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. :pRyan 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 :)