Basically they're the same price (about $15 -- nothing). But the GT240 is a DDR5 with 512MB of memory. And the GT220 is a DDR2 with 1GB of memory. Is the GT240 worth a little extra? But then again it doesn't have as much video memory, that's what I'm unsure of.|||The GT240 easily. Better card, and much better with DDR5
You'll only need the 1 GB of VRAM if you're using a resolution higher than 1680 x 1050. If you're playing at that or below, the extra 512 mb is basically useless anyways|||Like Lib said, who just answered one of my questions and who is apparently on fire, GT240 for sure. You might also note that the 240 has twice the processing cores as the 220. The video memory will do almost nothing unless you're seriously gaming at higher resolutions, and at that point the extra (extremely slow) memory on the 220 does nothing to make up for its incompetence.
Basically, the 240 is literally a huge step up from the 220. It's really not a fair comparison. 240 for sure. If you have a super high-res monitor, fifteen bucks more gets you 1GB of GDDR5 in a 240.
@Jack, suggesting the 250 is great and it is the "budget" gaming card, but there's a good chance the guy isn't doing any heavy gaming and the extra $50 or so may not be within budget. To the asker, though, if you're willing to fork out another $50, the 250 is the way to go.|||240 easily however i would highly recommend going to 250 or 260 for gaming. 250 is really the minimum budget game card.|||gt240 is a lot better, it is worth the extra cost, especially if you are going to be playing video games.
No comments:
Post a Comment