I've put together a brief comparison of two nVidia GT 240 graphics cards:
XFX GT240 512MB GDDR5 and MSI GT240 1GB GDDR5 - Pictured below:
*Update: Charts donated by Voxox - Thanks!*
XFX GT240 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150452
![Image]()
MSI GT240 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127483
![Image]()
I've selected a few synthetic and game benchmarks to see if the GT 240 benefits from additional VRAM. Both of these models sport GDDR5 - 512MB for the XFX card and 1GB for the MSI offering - and are both at stock clocks of 550Mhz core, 850Mhz memory (3400Mhz effective).
System Specs
Core i7 860 - 2.8Ghz - Stock
4GB DDR3-1333 9-9-9-24 (Fighting my motherboard to get them to their rated speed)
Gigabyte H55N-USB3 ITX
Seagate Momentus XT 500GB
Windows 7 64 Home Premium
Forceware 257.21
XFX GT240 512MB GDDR5
MSI GT240 1GB GDDR5
The Tests
3dMark06
-Default Setting
3dMark Vantage
-Performance
-Extreme
Dirt 2
-High Preset - 4xAA
Far Cry 2
-High Preset - 4xAA
Just Cause 2
-All settings High - 0xAA 2xAF - HBAO High - V-Sync Off
Resident Evil 5
-Fixed Benchmark - Max settings - 4xAA
Final Fantasy XIV Benchmark
-Low (720p)
-High (1080p)
All games are tested at 720p, 1680x1050, and 1920x1200 resolutions.
XFX scores will be marked in blue, MSI in green.
3dMark06
3dmarks 10404 - 10370
No appreciable difference
3dMark Vantage
Performance
3dMarks - 5594 - 5606
GPU Score - 4378 - 4389
No appreciable difference
Extreme
3dMarks - 1967 - 2171
GPU Score - 1875 - 2069
Here we notice a more significant difference, exceeding 10%.
Extreme runs at 1920x1200, so resolution is most likely a contributory factor.
Synthetics show that at low resolution, there is no difference in performance, but there is a small bump at higher resolution. We will see if the selected games reflect this trend or not.
Dirt 2
A VERY GPU-intensive game that shines when the settings are cranked. Fun to play, too!
720p
Avg - 61.5 - 61.8
Min - 51.5 - 51.7
1680x1050
Avg - 44.8 - 45.0
Min - 37.7 - 38.4
1920x1200
Avg - 37.1 - 37.0
Min - 30.1 - 30.6
Additional VRAM does not yield a performance increase in Dirt 2, even at 1920x1200. This leads me to believe GT 240 doesn't have enough firepower to utilize the additional memory in most situations. We'll see if other games trend this way as well.
![Image]()
Just Cause 2
Just Cause 2 is extremely GPU intensive, I left some bells and whistles enabled to see if it would yield any performance differential, despite the framerates listed being mostly unplayable.
Average Framerate
720p - 23.2 - 23.8
1680x1050 - 15.6 - 15.8
1920x1200 - 13.0 - 13.3
The performance here is nearly identical, I think it's safe to say that the GT 240 is limited by its processing power, not its VRAM in intensive applications.
![Image]()
Far Cry 2
A bit older, but still a good measure of GPU and CPU strength.
720p
Avg - 42.4 - 42.7
Min - 29.7 - 32.0
1680x1050
Avg - 27.7 - 29.3
Min - 12.3 - 15.8
1920x1200
Avg - 23.4 - 25.0
Min - 10.2 - 18.0
Finally we actually see a tangible benefit. The average FPS at medium and high resolutions are a frame and a half faster, and the minimum FPS have substantially improved. Additional VRAM is useful in Far Cry 2.
![Image]()
Final Fantasy XIV Benchmark
Fresh off the internet, I've included the FFXIV benchmark. I've done a bit of benching with it, and it seemed worthwhile to include it, so here you go.
Low - 720p - 2049 - 2046
High - 1080p - 1077 - 1075
The difference is negligible. While this may change in future releases, keep it in mind when shopping for a GPU if FFXIV is on your plate.
![Image]()
Resident Evil 5
My first time using this benchmark, it's straightforward and useful so I tossed it in. Running the "Fixed Benchmark" mode.
720p - 58.3 - 58.4
1680x1050 - 41.2 - 41.1
1920x1200 - 31.7 - 31.7
In line with testing so far, it shows that the GT240 is not limited by its VRAM in RE5.
![Image]()
Conclusion
While not as in depth as I would have liked (May run further benchmarks soon) this was a good indicator of how the GT240 manages in GPU intensive games and shed light on the impact of VRAM quantity. If you're shopping for a GT240 and want to maximize your budget efficiency, pick up the 512MB model. The difference between it and the 1GB model does not justify the price differential. While I did not cover a GDDR3 model, I would advise that they be overlooked in favor of GDDR5. The sweet spot for the GT240 is the 512MB GDDR5 model.
When purchased, these cards cost:
MSI - $90 ($60 AR)
XFX - $76 ($46 AR)
Given these prices, the XFX model wins in value.
Notes
There are several features that these graphics cards are lacking that I would like to mention as well.
-Neither features software voltage control
-Neither offers fan speed control
-Furmark load at 25C ambient of these cards is 66C (XFX) and 62C (MSI)
-Both cards take up two pci slots
-Neither card features memory heatsinks
I'm particularly miffed by the MSI GT240. It claims "30% Overclocking boost using Afterburner" on the Newegg site. This would be very reasonable if it actually supported voltage control through afterburner. There is no reason it shouldn't, as it is very well-built and has a competent cooler. Without this feature, I'm less likely to recommend it as a budget solution.
The other aggravating feature of both cards is the lack of fan speed control. Without it, it's fairly audible. I liken it to the sound of an intel stock LGA1156 cooler at full speed. Slightly softer than that, but rather annoying.
If you're looking for a cost-effective, low-power solution to play the latest games at modest settings and can overlook these quibbles, then by all means the GT240 is a strong value proposition that you should consider, since many of them are available for less than $50 after rebate and sip power. They are great upgrades for pre-built HP, Dell, etc systems.
Hope this helps a few people, I may update it with additional games in the future. Thanks for reading!
XFX GT240 512MB GDDR5 and MSI GT240 1GB GDDR5 - Pictured below:
*Update: Charts donated by Voxox - Thanks!*
XFX GT240 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150452
MSI GT240 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127483
I've selected a few synthetic and game benchmarks to see if the GT 240 benefits from additional VRAM. Both of these models sport GDDR5 - 512MB for the XFX card and 1GB for the MSI offering - and are both at stock clocks of 550Mhz core, 850Mhz memory (3400Mhz effective).
System Specs
Core i7 860 - 2.8Ghz - Stock
4GB DDR3-1333 9-9-9-24 (Fighting my motherboard to get them to their rated speed)
Gigabyte H55N-USB3 ITX
Seagate Momentus XT 500GB
Windows 7 64 Home Premium
Forceware 257.21
XFX GT240 512MB GDDR5
MSI GT240 1GB GDDR5
The Tests
3dMark06
-Default Setting
3dMark Vantage
-Performance
-Extreme
Dirt 2
-High Preset - 4xAA
Far Cry 2
-High Preset - 4xAA
Just Cause 2
-All settings High - 0xAA 2xAF - HBAO High - V-Sync Off
Resident Evil 5
-Fixed Benchmark - Max settings - 4xAA
Final Fantasy XIV Benchmark
-Low (720p)
-High (1080p)
All games are tested at 720p, 1680x1050, and 1920x1200 resolutions.
XFX scores will be marked in blue, MSI in green.
3dMark06
3dmarks 10404 - 10370
No appreciable difference
3dMark Vantage
Performance
3dMarks - 5594 - 5606
GPU Score - 4378 - 4389
No appreciable difference
Extreme
3dMarks - 1967 - 2171
GPU Score - 1875 - 2069
Here we notice a more significant difference, exceeding 10%.
Extreme runs at 1920x1200, so resolution is most likely a contributory factor.
Synthetics show that at low resolution, there is no difference in performance, but there is a small bump at higher resolution. We will see if the selected games reflect this trend or not.
Dirt 2
A VERY GPU-intensive game that shines when the settings are cranked. Fun to play, too!
720p
Avg - 61.5 - 61.8
Min - 51.5 - 51.7
1680x1050
Avg - 44.8 - 45.0
Min - 37.7 - 38.4
1920x1200
Avg - 37.1 - 37.0
Min - 30.1 - 30.6
Additional VRAM does not yield a performance increase in Dirt 2, even at 1920x1200. This leads me to believe GT 240 doesn't have enough firepower to utilize the additional memory in most situations. We'll see if other games trend this way as well.
Just Cause 2
Just Cause 2 is extremely GPU intensive, I left some bells and whistles enabled to see if it would yield any performance differential, despite the framerates listed being mostly unplayable.
Average Framerate
720p - 23.2 - 23.8
1680x1050 - 15.6 - 15.8
1920x1200 - 13.0 - 13.3
The performance here is nearly identical, I think it's safe to say that the GT 240 is limited by its processing power, not its VRAM in intensive applications.
Far Cry 2
A bit older, but still a good measure of GPU and CPU strength.
720p
Avg - 42.4 - 42.7
Min - 29.7 - 32.0
1680x1050
Avg - 27.7 - 29.3
Min - 12.3 - 15.8
1920x1200
Avg - 23.4 - 25.0
Min - 10.2 - 18.0
Finally we actually see a tangible benefit. The average FPS at medium and high resolutions are a frame and a half faster, and the minimum FPS have substantially improved. Additional VRAM is useful in Far Cry 2.
Final Fantasy XIV Benchmark
Fresh off the internet, I've included the FFXIV benchmark. I've done a bit of benching with it, and it seemed worthwhile to include it, so here you go.
Low - 720p - 2049 - 2046
High - 1080p - 1077 - 1075
The difference is negligible. While this may change in future releases, keep it in mind when shopping for a GPU if FFXIV is on your plate.
Resident Evil 5
My first time using this benchmark, it's straightforward and useful so I tossed it in. Running the "Fixed Benchmark" mode.
720p - 58.3 - 58.4
1680x1050 - 41.2 - 41.1
1920x1200 - 31.7 - 31.7
In line with testing so far, it shows that the GT240 is not limited by its VRAM in RE5.
Conclusion
While not as in depth as I would have liked (May run further benchmarks soon) this was a good indicator of how the GT240 manages in GPU intensive games and shed light on the impact of VRAM quantity. If you're shopping for a GT240 and want to maximize your budget efficiency, pick up the 512MB model. The difference between it and the 1GB model does not justify the price differential. While I did not cover a GDDR3 model, I would advise that they be overlooked in favor of GDDR5. The sweet spot for the GT240 is the 512MB GDDR5 model.
When purchased, these cards cost:
MSI - $90 ($60 AR)
XFX - $76 ($46 AR)
Given these prices, the XFX model wins in value.
Notes
There are several features that these graphics cards are lacking that I would like to mention as well.
-Neither features software voltage control
-Neither offers fan speed control
-Furmark load at 25C ambient of these cards is 66C (XFX) and 62C (MSI)
-Both cards take up two pci slots
-Neither card features memory heatsinks
I'm particularly miffed by the MSI GT240. It claims "30% Overclocking boost using Afterburner" on the Newegg site. This would be very reasonable if it actually supported voltage control through afterburner. There is no reason it shouldn't, as it is very well-built and has a competent cooler. Without this feature, I'm less likely to recommend it as a budget solution.
The other aggravating feature of both cards is the lack of fan speed control. Without it, it's fairly audible. I liken it to the sound of an intel stock LGA1156 cooler at full speed. Slightly softer than that, but rather annoying.
If you're looking for a cost-effective, low-power solution to play the latest games at modest settings and can overlook these quibbles, then by all means the GT240 is a strong value proposition that you should consider, since many of them are available for less than $50 after rebate and sip power. They are great upgrades for pre-built HP, Dell, etc systems.
Hope this helps a few people, I may update it with additional games in the future. Thanks for reading!
