Page 3: "On the s/w side was Ubuntu 9.10 (x86_64) with the Linux 2.6.31 kernel, X Serv 1.6.4, and the NVIDIA 195.30 beta display driver was installed."
Further down the page, The 190.53 driver is mentioned. It's still unclear which driver was used for the tests.
A "Test Setup" page would be a nice inclusion with full details of the hardware and software used in the review.
(I was looking for such a page when I posted my comment, and the first driver mention I saw was the 195.30, so I assumed it was in use.)
It appears the 190.53 drivers were chosen for the tests because of an inability to overclock with the 195.30 driver, even though everything else was fine? I'm amused at the review utilising a "more broken, albeit stable" driver (190.53) which gave the impression of being able to overclock - when in actual fact nothing happened. Whereas the 195.30 beta driver doesn't auto-adjust the clock speeds.
Why try to overclock a GT240? It's a mainstream card, not a high-end performance card - We're linux gamers and media enthusiasts (VDPAU). Very good price, (hopefully) very long hardware life due to the cooler 40nm tech (Zotac offer a 5yr warranty if you register and a few other vendors have a standard 3 year warranty).
Summary: I would have preferred the card be tested with stable and beta drivers, not just one version. Nonetheless, thank you for the review, looking forward to seeing if the GT240 (or the Nvidia drivers) ever pull their weight under Linux, making a GT240 purchase worthwhile for me - or if I have to 'hang out' another 9 months waiting for the mainstream GF300 series (or simply WINE/nvidia improvements to help my aging 8600GT).
That said, VDPAU Feature Set C makes this card a good purchase for media enthusiasts (additional decoding of various video formats, high quality up-scaling and sharpening).