+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: GTS 240 vs GTS 250

  1. #1
    Rift Chaser Marz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    291

    Default GTS 240 vs GTS 250

    The recommended video card is the GTS250, but how much worse is the GTS 240 in comparison?

  2. #2
    Champion
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chi-Town
    Posts
    555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marz View Post
    The recommended video card is the GTS250, but how much worse is the GTS 240 in comparison?
    IIRC, the 240 is about 40-65% slower than the 250 (a re-tweaked 9800GTX+ which is a rebranded 8800)

    at a BARE MINIMUM, I'd suggest a 250/9800. however it will cost ($90-100) about 2x as much as a GT 240 ($40-50) new, otherwise I'd hit up ebay and look for a 8800/9800/250, they can be gotten for as little as $25-40, I don't know if I'd pay much more than $55-65 as you can get a HD4850 (lil faster then 9800 GT, lil slower than 250) new for around $70
    Last edited by SirPent; 02-08-2011 at 09:54 AM.

  3. #3
    Shadowlander
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marz View Post
    The recommended video card is the GTS250, but how much worse is the GTS 240 in comparison?
    First and prob a pretty important thing, is that a GTS 240 only uses one slot width, while the 250 actually needs two. May be relevant depending on system and mobo configuration/available slots.

    Both use 120w power. However, 240 is only 2 way sli compatible where as the 250 is 3-way.

    The only other difference is the core count and speeds:

    240 = 112 cores, graphics clock at 675MHz, with the processor clock at 1620 MHz.

    250 = 128 cores, graphics clock at 738MHz, with the processor clock at 1836MHz.

    Both have same memory clock speeds at 1100MHz and both have the same fill rates and bandwidths at 70.4 GBs/sec

    So realistically, what it boils down to is would you sacrifice some money for an additional 16 cores or settle for 112 and just overclock the settings to make up the difference in speeds? Obviously, the more cores you have the better. GTS 200 series are starting to fall back in standards vs. what's out there now, as well.So if you go with either of them, consider running two so they are at least competitive, but make sure you have sufficient power for them. I'd say 550 - 600w just to be on the safe side depending on other components.

  4. #4
    Rift Disciple SoltanGris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Texas Gulf Coast,
    Posts
    122

    Default Oh , the agony of it all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marz View Post
    The recommended video card is the GTS250, but how much worse is the GTS 240 in comparison?
    I sat for a couple minutes reading this thread and trying to come up with a answer.

    In the end I just ended up crying.
    Windows 7 64bit, Mobo: Abit IP-35 Pro, CPU: Intel Core 2 E8500 OC@3.60hz, RAM 4GB, GPU: Nvidia GTX 580: (Pre 03/2011 was GTX 285, Driver 197.45)
    Sound: Realtek, Monitor LG 24 inch Dell U2410 at 1920x1280, Mouse: Logitech G5 with v4.80 64 bit Setpoint drivers.
    Keyboard: Logitech G15

  5. #5
    Champion of Telara
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    They are both bad and not made for games.. End of story :O

+ Reply to Thread

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