# MSI N240GT GeForce GT 240 512 MB GDDR5



## W1zzard (Nov 16, 2009)

Today NVIDIA launches their first GDDR5 graphics card. The new GeForce GT 240 is based on NVIDIA's brand-new 40 nm G215 graphics processor and features 96 shaders. It also includes several new features like support for DirectX 10.1, HDMI audio enhancements and extremely low power draw. But is that enough to justify a price of $100 ?

*Show full review*


----------



## DrPepper (Nov 17, 2009)

Sweet review  w1zzard

Shame this card costs more than the 9800GT though  It would be sweet for folding if it was cheaper. I might get one as a backup card if the price drops enough say £50 if I'm lucky.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 17, 2009)

Seems like a real waste, considering the 9600GT is cheaper and performs better.  Power consumption is amazing though.  Hopefully prices go down quickly.


----------



## wolf (Nov 17, 2009)

I'm just left scratching my head really, sometimes the performance is really quite strong, and sometimes (more often) its sub 9600GT.

The price really needs to settle and it should find a comfortable spot, if that's something that they can do.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Nov 17, 2009)

I beleive the price is justified for what you get. Would work great in HTPC setup with slightly better gaming then the HD4670, although some would opt to go the cheaper route. Also would work with all motherboards for Audio over HDMI, no longer needing an onboard SPDIF header for passthrough. I feel this card is a win-win situation for those who purchase it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 17, 2009)

wolf said:


> I'm just left scratching my head really, sometimes the performance is really quite strong, and sometimes (more often) its sub 9600GT.
> 
> The price really needs to settle and it should find a comfortable spot, if that's something that they can do.



I think a lot of this might be drivers as well, hopefully some driver optimizations will improve performance.

And I agree about the price, needs to be sub-$90 IMO.  A 9800GT stomps this and is only $99.  Obviously performance isn't everything, but generally cards are priced by how they perform.


----------



## wolf (Nov 17, 2009)

price vs performance is really what it comes down to these days.

sprinkle on a few features and you've got yourself a cake.


----------



## jagd (Nov 17, 2009)

Thanks for review ,i wish msi had been send ddr3 model  for comparing both cards. Card is under 9600GT most of the time as i expected but it is  head to head with 1Gb gts250 at crysis  .I guess card has some kind driver problems it is behind gt220 and 9500gt at quake4 1920 *1200 dont look normal.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 17, 2009)

quake 4 1920 doesn't look right indeed. i'll rebench asap, but might be a while... working on the reviews for tomorrow's nda right now


----------



## DaC (Nov 17, 2009)

Nice power consumption, but still doesn't justify the high price.... a little more than HD 4670 would look right.


----------



## wolf (Nov 17, 2009)

W1zzard said:


> working on the reviews for tomorrow's nda right now



I envy you far too often W1z.


----------



## KainXS (Nov 17, 2009)

its a htpc card from the look, needs to be 30 dollars cheaper to be even somewhat competitive.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 17, 2009)

wolf said:


> I envy you far too often W1z.



yep .. today: no breakfast, lunch at 4 pm, nonstop working to get the gt 240 review done. now that that is over, work on more reviews, maybe get a light dinner at 10 or 11 .. then work till 3 .. then get up at 6 to post the reviews


----------



## wolf (Nov 17, 2009)

W1zzard said:


> yep .. today: no breakfast, lunch at 4 pm, nonstop working to get the gt 240 review done. now that that is over, work on more reviews, maybe get a light dinner at 10 or 11 .. then work till 3 .. then get up at 6 to post the reviews



I stand by what I said, I'd give up meals, sleep, and possibly body parts to be sent hardware early to review it, not that I'd do as good a job, of course.

secondly, OMG W1z replied directly to me


----------



## SirMango (Nov 17, 2009)

Very impressive power consumption for the performance, but terrible pricing at the moment.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 17, 2009)

wolf said:


> secondly, OMG W1z replied directly to me







W1zz.


A suggestion from the reviews, on obvious failures like using this card to play a game at any sort of current resolution on certain games, can you add a red line to the bottom of the cards highlighted bars on the graph to show that it isn't recommended. Perhaps some of our non-engrish speaking users would benefit from knowing that because the card does have the best performance per $ at 1920X1200 doesn't mean that they should go buy it thinking they will have a great gaming experience at 12FPS

For example if I were to think that a GTX285 is a worse buy........







Well, I'm sure you get the idea.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 17, 2009)

the graph isnt sorted by performance so you cant draw a "playable" cutoff line


----------



## Steevo (Nov 17, 2009)

Then maybe add a recommended use for the cards? Just a quick reference for those with more limited english vocabulary. I only mention as I have seen some of the charts thrown around, and taken out of context they can really change the meaning and demolish the credibility of your reviews.

If not no big deal, the majority of the user base seems to have a decent understanding.


----------



## mdm-adph (Nov 17, 2009)

W1zzard said:


> the graph isnt sorted by performance so you cant draw a "playable" cutoff line



I think he's meaning adding a red line to the bottom of each _card's_ individual bar if it's not playable.  Still, though -- what's "playable?"

I remember playing Halo at 20fps with my Radeon 9200SE back in the day.  It was definitely "playable," it just looked like shit!  

That being said -- the power draw on this card is absolutely stunning.  40nm chips sure sip the juice.


----------



## 3870x2 (Nov 17, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> I beleive the price is justified for what you get. Would work great in HTPC setup with slightly better gaming then the HD4670, although some would opt to go the cheaper route. Also would work with all motherboards for Audio over HDMI, no longer needing an onboard SPDIF header for passthrough. I feel this card is a win-win situation for those who purchase it.



sounds about right.  Seems this card should be more for utility than hardcore gaming performance.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Nov 17, 2009)

OK, show of hands.  How many were hoping for a 40nm version of the 9800GT instead of this 9600GSO, 9600GT, 9500GT mutated hybrid with GDDR5?  I pity those who mistakenly pick up the GDDR3 version.:shadedshu


----------



## erocker (Nov 17, 2009)

thebluebumblebee said:


> OK, show of hands.  How many were hoping for a 40nm version of the 9800GT instead of this 9600GSO, 9600GT, 9500GT mutated hybrid with GDDR5?  I pity those who mistakenly pick up the GDDR3 version.:shadedshu



Hands in lap. I'm hoping for a 40nm DX11 card from Nvidia. I just don't see a point with this card.


----------



## tkpenalty (Nov 17, 2009)

I dont get it... why dont they make a 40nm version of the 9800GT? Arguably one of their most successful cores.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Nov 17, 2009)

How does this card beat the GTS 250 and a 4850 in Crysis in lower resolutions? Are the drivers better or something?


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 17, 2009)

Jstn7477 said:


> How does this card beat the GTS 250 and a 4850 in Crysis in lower resolutions? Are the drivers better or something?



yes it seems in the case of crysis there is a huge improvement by the driver version. i verified crysis twice and the numbers are correct


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Nov 17, 2009)

This should be the GT 230!


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 17, 2009)

thebluebumblebee said:


> This should be the GT 230!



nvidia renaming a product? never!


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Nov 17, 2009)

Nvidia writing a driver to make a card look better?  Never!


----------



## Steevo (Nov 17, 2009)

Older drivers on the 4850, Perhaps they beefed up a couple items. Who cares about lower resolutions, that is like saying a pinto beat a Supra at a 2 ft race, it doesn't really matter unless you drive the pinto. But you are still going home with the ugly chick.


No, wait it has to be more bandwidth.......that is it. But it still needs more.


If you read the resolutions *****AND EYE CANDY**** levels used, you will see it fails at eye candy, exactly what the extra shaders are for elsewhere.

•1024 x 768, No Anti-aliasing. This is a standard resolution without demanding display settings.
•1280 x 1024, 2x Anti-aliasing. Common resolution for most smaller flatscreens today (17" - 19"). A bit of eye candy turned on in the drivers.
•1680 x 1050, 4x Anti-aliasing. Most common widescreen resolution on larger displays (19" - 22"). Very good looking driver graphics settings.
•1920 x 1200, 4x Anti-aliasing. Typical widescreen resolution for large displays (22" - 26"). Very good looking driver graphics settings.
•2560 x 1600, 4x Anti-aliasing. Highest possible resolution for commonly available displays (30"). Very good looking driver graphics settings.




mdm-adph said:


> I think he's meaning adding a red line to the bottom of each _card's_ individual bar if it's not playable.  Still, though -- what's "playable?"
> 
> I remember playing Halo at 20fps with my Radeon 9200SE back in the day.  It was definitely "playable," it just looked like shit!
> 
> That being said -- the power draw on this card is absolutely stunning.  40nm chips sure sip the juice.





And yes, putting a red line at the bottom of the bars of anything above 1680X1050 on performance per watt, dollar.....and for the games themselves that fal below 30FPS. Showing the card will not perform well enough at those leves to maintain smooth gameplay.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Nov 17, 2009)

Wow, I am going to download these 195.55 beta drivers. Maybe they will improve my GeForce 210 a little bit.


----------



## Zubasa (Nov 17, 2009)

I just don't really get these low end cards....
It looks like ATi loves crippling a good core with pity bandwidth (HD 4670), and nVidia loves to put a ton of bandwidth on a crippled core (GT240 GDDR5).
Yes this performs basically like that crippled 9600 GSO...
At lease the 4670 is a tad cheaper. 
For over a hundred dollars I expect something more than this. :shadedshu


----------



## Kantastic (Nov 18, 2009)

The Crysis performance makes me wonder what this card can do with developed drivers.


----------



## Necrofire (Nov 18, 2009)

I'm sure this would be a lot more work for w1z, but as a suggestion for "playable" versus "performance per watt" and "performance per dollar", I'd suggest this:

The bars could have different colored outlines, indicating performace, i.e:
red for <25fps, yellow for 25-60 fps, and green for >60fps
something along those lines.


My favorite part of your reviews w1z is the performance per watt and performance per dollar anyway, so if it stayed the same, I'd still be very happy (even more so since it's nice to see my 4850 way up there on the performance per dollar chart ).


----------



## lemonadesoda (Nov 18, 2009)

Mr W1zzard, may I suggest some graphics magic:

XY chart with labels.  X is performance. Y is performance per dollar (or watt).  Label each card A, B, C... and plot them. Now grey-SHADE the background of the chart into THIRDS (top third performers, mid, bottom).

Our FAVOURITE card is probably in the upper right quadrant.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 18, 2009)

Kantastic said:


> The Crysis performance makes me wonder what this card can do with developed drivers.



It can still fail at any sort of modern resolution.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 18, 2009)

w1zzy, can you do a test for me?

I'd like you to test how the card behaves with three monitors, and if you cant use all three at once (which i beleive to be the case) which one gets disabled.

i've seen cards like this before where you can only use two of the three, but its locked to which two (such as, VGA + HDMI or VGA + DVI, but not HDMI + DVI)

more or less, i'd just like you to see what combinations work


----------



## DaJMasta (Nov 18, 2009)

I'm actually curious about the 8.3 rating.  I know there's no need or want to just complain about a product, but I think 8.3 is a little generous given it's two major faults: Lower performance than it's predecessor at playable resolutions (yes it may sometimes beat out the 9600GT at 1920x1200+, but you can't actually play games at that res with the card)
More expensive than a card that beats it out in every bench, more than 50% more expensive than the 9600GT which it usually looses to.

I understand that the features improvements are there and tangible, and that the 40nm GPU not using a PCI-E power connector is really quite good, but I have trouble considering a fault in both performance and price to yield a fairly good review score.  Perhaps I'm not considering important other variables and I don't know how your weighting system works, but it seemed amiss to me.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 18, 2009)

DaJMasta said:


> I'm actually curious about the 8.3 rating.  I know there's no need or want to just complain about a product, but I think 8.3 is a little generous given it's two major faults: Lower performance than it's predecessor at playable resolutions (yes it may sometimes beat out the 9600GT at 1920x1200+, but you can't actually play games at that res with the card)
> More expensive than a card that beats it out in every bench, more than 50% more expensive than the 9600GT which it usually looses to.
> 
> I understand that the features improvements are there and tangible, and that the 40nm GPU not using a PCI-E power connector is really quite good, but I have trouble considering a fault in both performance and price to yield a fairly good review score.  Perhaps I'm not considering important other variables and I don't know how your weighting system works, but it seemed amiss to me.



because the price will lower over time.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 18, 2009)

But the review is for the current price, correct? 

TO be honest as there are cards with much better performance and lower cost I would never buy this for almost  the same money you could have a 5750 and be more future proof, plus much better overclocks.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 18, 2009)

the problem is that if he lowers the score based on price, it makes the review worthless in a few months - the card may halve in price overnight and suddenly be totally awesome, yet the reviews score will make people stay away.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 18, 2009)

So give a good review to every card that comes along, based on future prices?



I think not.



Give a review to cards based on their market value as set by the MFG. By the features, innovation, and performance they bring.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 18, 2009)

no, i think price is worthy of being mentioned, and in the graphs - but useless in the long run, so dont affect the score by it.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 18, 2009)

Your right.


----------



## Imsochobo (Nov 18, 2009)

you get a nice 4770 for the same price...


----------



## Jeffredo (Nov 19, 2009)

I've got a new card to recommend to people with cheap pre-built systems and HTPCs.  That 300W minimum requirement is going to help.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 19, 2009)

Jeffredo said:


> I've got a new card to recommend to people with cheap pre-built systems and HTPCs.  That 300W minimum requirement is going to help.



I don't see how, this card pulling 300w would likely overload most HTPC and cheap pre-built power supplies... 

And good luck fitting it in the case.


----------



## mdm-adph (Nov 19, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> I don't see how, this card pulling 300w would likely overload most HTPC and cheap pre-built power supplies...
> 
> And good luck fitting it in the case.



I think he meant 300w power supply requirement.


----------



## Ilovecroatia (Dec 18, 2009)

renethx  

really, appreciate all the hard work you have done and the work of others which lead to this thread.

Looks like I will getting this MSI motherboard.

Thanks, again.

Gary


----------



## Jeffredo (Dec 18, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> I don't see how, this card pulling 300w would likely overload most HTPC and cheap pre-built power supplies...
> 
> And good luck fitting it in the case.



Well, people have been recommending an HD 4670 for over a year now for those purposes.  The GT 240 uses a tiny bit less power, performs better and the board is no larger physically.  Again, its a good one to recommend for all those cheap, pre-built Dells, HPs and such (with their weak power supplies).  Maybe you misunderstood my post (which I thought was pretty clear).


----------



## mudkip (Oct 13, 2010)

GT430 is out..huge disappointment I was hoping that it could replace this GT 240 but no.


----------

