![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
I have already posted these results in the GT 220 forum mistakenly, but I thought it appropriate to create a thread for anyone following specifically the GT 240 or possibly the more elderly 9600GT.
Well, first of all, I have been fighting my setup for so long I didn't even realize that I'd ordered a GT 240 rather than a 220 for my new dedicated physx card. My hopes were that the performance would be on par with the 9600GT, that the power consumption would be less, and that my noise levels would go down, as my Galaxy 9600GT was fairly noisy. To be fair, I'm replacing my Galaxy 9600GT with a Galaxy GT 240. In order to get this all to work, I had to disable SLI. So essentially my only successful (or conclusive) testing has been done with only half of my 295 actually working. Here are the settings and results:
All detail levels on "highest"
2x AA
vsync disabled (in game settings document as well)
PhysX enabled
1920x1200
I'm running the GTX 295 with multi-gpu disabled. Half a 295 is still a fairly strong graphics card by itself - halfway in between a 285 and a 260 (core 216).
With half the 295 running graphics and physx, these are the averages of all tests ran with these particular settings:
Min. FPS: 52
Max: 111
Avg: 78
When the 9600GT is enabled for physx, I get these results:
Min: 55
Max: 116
Avg: 81
Replacing the 9600GT with the GT 240 for physx yielded these results:
Min: 52
Max: 118
Avg: 81
Now, to be fair, this first set of tests was done with the 195 drivers. I decided to test the GT 240 with the latest drivers, and this is how it did with a driver update:
Min: 56
Max: 117
Avg: 81
The GT 240 performs REMARKABLY on par with the 9600GT. That was not unexpected. I was kind of hoping for some improvement, but even with the latest drivers, there is virtually NO improvement in using a GT 240 over a 9600 for dedicated physx. By these numbers, I estimate that at least in Mirror's edge, if you have at least a GTX 275 or better, there is NO reason to get a GT 220 as a dedicated physx card. The 9600GT and the GT 240 are the minimum that you will see a noticeable difference, and this difference is not very big. Obviously I must test more games, but at least with Mirror's Edge, my results echo what many have recommended in this thread - don't get anything less than a 240 or a 9600 as a dedicated physx card.
Now here is the kicker - power consumption. You would think that the 240 would be more efficient than the 9600GT. It is on a new 40nm process, and unlike the 9600, the GT 240 requires no external power.
At least as a dedicated physx card, the idle power consumption is virtually unchanged, but the load power consumption saw a noticeable increase. At load, average and peak power draw figures both increased by TEN WATTS!!! After testing, testing, testing, and retesting, all of my performance numbers and power consumption numbers are extremely similar across the board.
So I'd like to take this moment to congratulate nVidia for GOING BACKWARDS when it comes to dedicated physx hardware. Now as a dedicated graphics card only, the 240 is quite efficient, but if you're going to buy a dedicated physx card, SKIP the GT 240 altogether. Get a 9600GT (preferably a quiet one - I used to have a quiet one ...) or go with the 9800GT/GTS 250, which many have found to be a fair bump up from the 9600GT.
I'm going to retest power consumption numbers one more time, because that simply makes no sense, but I'm extremely disappointed. To members of this forum, I would also recommend skipping the GT 220 as a dedicated physx card, unless you have a primary card that struggles only when physx is enabled. Then it might be worth it, but I'd still spend the extra $20 and get the 9600GT if you really want to see a noticeable boost.
On the bright side, the new GT 240 is smaller and quieter!
Edit: .... actually, it's not much quieter. Even at 0% the GT 240 is STILL the most audible fan in the case. I JUST CAN'T WIN.
Well, first of all, I have been fighting my setup for so long I didn't even realize that I'd ordered a GT 240 rather than a 220 for my new dedicated physx card. My hopes were that the performance would be on par with the 9600GT, that the power consumption would be less, and that my noise levels would go down, as my Galaxy 9600GT was fairly noisy. To be fair, I'm replacing my Galaxy 9600GT with a Galaxy GT 240. In order to get this all to work, I had to disable SLI. So essentially my only successful (or conclusive) testing has been done with only half of my 295 actually working. Here are the settings and results:
All detail levels on "highest"
2x AA
vsync disabled (in game settings document as well)
PhysX enabled
1920x1200
I'm running the GTX 295 with multi-gpu disabled. Half a 295 is still a fairly strong graphics card by itself - halfway in between a 285 and a 260 (core 216).
With half the 295 running graphics and physx, these are the averages of all tests ran with these particular settings:
Min. FPS: 52
Max: 111
Avg: 78
When the 9600GT is enabled for physx, I get these results:
Min: 55
Max: 116
Avg: 81
Replacing the 9600GT with the GT 240 for physx yielded these results:
Min: 52
Max: 118
Avg: 81
Now, to be fair, this first set of tests was done with the 195 drivers. I decided to test the GT 240 with the latest drivers, and this is how it did with a driver update:
Min: 56
Max: 117
Avg: 81
The GT 240 performs REMARKABLY on par with the 9600GT. That was not unexpected. I was kind of hoping for some improvement, but even with the latest drivers, there is virtually NO improvement in using a GT 240 over a 9600 for dedicated physx. By these numbers, I estimate that at least in Mirror's edge, if you have at least a GTX 275 or better, there is NO reason to get a GT 220 as a dedicated physx card. The 9600GT and the GT 240 are the minimum that you will see a noticeable difference, and this difference is not very big. Obviously I must test more games, but at least with Mirror's Edge, my results echo what many have recommended in this thread - don't get anything less than a 240 or a 9600 as a dedicated physx card.
Now here is the kicker - power consumption. You would think that the 240 would be more efficient than the 9600GT. It is on a new 40nm process, and unlike the 9600, the GT 240 requires no external power.
At least as a dedicated physx card, the idle power consumption is virtually unchanged, but the load power consumption saw a noticeable increase. At load, average and peak power draw figures both increased by TEN WATTS!!! After testing, testing, testing, and retesting, all of my performance numbers and power consumption numbers are extremely similar across the board.
So I'd like to take this moment to congratulate nVidia for GOING BACKWARDS when it comes to dedicated physx hardware. Now as a dedicated graphics card only, the 240 is quite efficient, but if you're going to buy a dedicated physx card, SKIP the GT 240 altogether. Get a 9600GT (preferably a quiet one - I used to have a quiet one ...) or go with the 9800GT/GTS 250, which many have found to be a fair bump up from the 9600GT.
I'm going to retest power consumption numbers one more time, because that simply makes no sense, but I'm extremely disappointed. To members of this forum, I would also recommend skipping the GT 220 as a dedicated physx card, unless you have a primary card that struggles only when physx is enabled. Then it might be worth it, but I'd still spend the extra $20 and get the 9600GT if you really want to see a noticeable boost.
On the bright side, the new GT 240 is smaller and quieter!
Edit: .... actually, it's not much quieter. Even at 0% the GT 240 is STILL the most audible fan in the case. I JUST CAN'T WIN.
Last edited: