NVIDIA GeForce GT 220

[jalyst]

I'm just hoping Intel HD for VA is sufficient for all my needs!
I don't need 3d acceleration......

[Kano]

That's definitely correct, just when you want to have the latest vp4 engine (which supports divx) a nv dx10.1/11 card. Also with a recent kernel and a small tuning of the snd-hda-intel module options you can use audio over hdmi directly (since 2.6.34). The series 9 cards allow however that you connect onboard spdif to use the default sound device. It's really sad that the current nv dx11 cards are too expensive - the new gtx 465 is most likely the most useless addon - too expensive for the speed compared to the gtx 470. Hopefully fermi will power mainstream cards soon...

[MU_Engineer]

Something isn't right. The 240 is a 40nm shrink of the 9600GT. At the hardware level they're virtually identical -- same number of shaders of the same architecture and clocks, similar memory bandwidth for the DDR5 version of the 240. Now granted, the DDR3 version is slower if you got one of those by mistake -- but we're talking 10-15% slower, not 70% slower.

The GT240 is not quite a 40 nm shrink of the 9600GT, it has a few tweaks. The GT240 is GT200-based unit (GT214 IIRC) with VP4 video decode capability to the 9600GT's VP2 and some enhancements to CUDA and a point bump in Microsoft Direct3D compatibility (10.1 compared to 10.0 for the 9600GT.)

I'd say try un-overclocking and benchmarking in windows to troubleshoot what the real problem is. The GT240 is a capable entry level gaming card just like its twin, the 9600GT. It should handle most modern games just fine at 720p resolution, and a few even at 1080p with medium settings and no FSAA. It may not be a mainstream performer in 2010, but seeing as they're often available for around $50 AR they are still a fair value.

The GT240 is the replacement to take the place of the 9600GT in the low-midrange market. It's a decent card for an SFF PC or HTPC that occasionally plays games as it has more gaming muscle than a bottom-end GT220 or G210 card (or Radeon HD 5450 for that matter) but still comes in at a relatively low 61 W TDP. But it's not a real gaming card as it's pretty much a 1280x1024/1440x900 or below card. The GT240 is really only a good deal if it is available with a stiff rebate as its MSRP of $80-100 puts it in contention with far better cards like the 9800 GT and Radeon HD 5670 and frequently even the 512 MB versions of the 9800GTX+/GTS250 and Radeon HD 4850. Those latter cards are so much faster than the GT240 that it's not even funny.

[Kano]

The current driver is 195.36.24.

[Zorander]

@Zorander

Do you use the latest driver?

Sorry for the delay. I used the latest driver in the Arch Linux repos at the time of my post, but I haven't yet tried the latest build (195.36.15 as of now). I should clarify that I have a DDR3 card clocked at GPU=630, MEM=948. This card has fewer rasterization units than the 9600GT I previously owned, so it's no surprise that it chokes on scenes with many polygons.

[Kano]

@Zorander

Do you use the latest driver?

[v8envy]

I involuntarily ended up with a GT 240 after my 9600GT broke and I had to RMA it. Now Unigine Tropics went from ~60 fps to ~20 fps. And that's with an OC'd card! Nexuiz also runs veeeery slow (scenes which rendered at ~60 fps before went down to ~20 fps).

Something isn't right. The 240 is a 40nm shrink of the 9600GT. At the hardware level they're virtually identical -- same number of shaders of the same architecture and clocks, similar memory bandwidth for the DDR5 version of the 240. Now granted, the DDR3 version is slower if you got one of those by mistake -- but we're talking 10-15% slower, not 70% slower.

I'd say try un-overclocking and benchmarking in windows to troubleshoot what the real problem is. The GT240 is a capable entry level gaming card just like its twin, the 9600GT. It should handle most modern games just fine at 720p resolution, and a few even at 1080p with medium settings and no FSAA. It may not be a mainstream performer in 2010, but seeing as they're often available for around $50 AR they are still a fair value.

[Zorander]

"[...] but will struggle with any of the more demanding native Linux games like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars or the Unigine game engine."

Where's the benchmarks of those?

I myself have performed no benchmarks, but on my machine my GT 240 pukes on Unigine based stuff, and runs ET:QW like a dream. I involuntarily ended up with a GT 240 after my 9600GT broke and I had to RMA it. Now Unigine Tropics went from ~60 fps to ~20 fps. And that's with an OC'd card! Nexuiz also runs veeeery slow (scenes which rendered at ~60 fps before went down to ~20 fps).

So, in conclusion: Unless you're going to play games like tuxracer (with the exception of ET:QW), buy another card. There are cheaper cards if you need a GPU for VDPAU (such as the GT 220), and there are equally priced cards if you want to play games (9800GT for example). Stay away from the GT 240 until it goes down to the (by me) perceived value of $30.

[starchild]

"[...] but will struggle with any of the more demanding native Linux games like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars or the Unigine game engine."

Where's the benchmarks of those?

[jalyst]

Might wait till nV has finally released their nextgen architecture some time in Q1 2010...
Then (depending who's winning at the mid-2-top level) I'll get a much stronger AMD or nV card which I can swap into my myth front-end whenever I want heavy duty gaming abilities.

So for the time being GT 240 is it, unless anyone vehemently disagrees?