gt210 and 220 vs 9800gt
Is gt 210 better in performance than 9800 gt? or
gt 220 better in performance than 9800 gt ?
Is gt 210 better in performance than 9800 gt? or

gt 220 better in performance than 9800 gt ?

#1
Posted 01/17/2010 03:29 PM   
9800GT is better than both those cards by a big margin.

And a GT240 is equivalent to a 9600GT, so again a 9800GT is much better.
9800GT is better than both those cards by a big margin.



And a GT240 is equivalent to a 9600GT, so again a 9800GT is much better.

#2
Posted 01/17/2010 06:10 PM   
[quote name='DukeNukem' post='982971' date='Jan 17 2010, 11:10 AM']9800GT is better than both those cards by a big margin.

And a GT240 is equivalent to a 9600GT, so again a 9800GT is much better.[/quote]
+1
The GTxxx cards are meant to be replacement cards for the mainstream crap put into prebuilt systems so you would do well to grab a 9800GT or higher card. :)
[quote name='DukeNukem' post='982971' date='Jan 17 2010, 11:10 AM']9800GT is better than both those cards by a big margin.



And a GT240 is equivalent to a 9600GT, so again a 9800GT is much better.

+1

The GTxxx cards are meant to be replacement cards for the mainstream crap put into prebuilt systems so you would do well to grab a 9800GT or higher card. :)

#3
Posted 01/18/2010 11:58 AM   
[quote name='DukeNukem' post='982971' date='Jan 18 2010, 07:10 AM']9800GT is better than both those cards by a big margin.

And a GT240 is equivalent to a 9600GT, so again a 9800GT is much better.[/quote]

I'm sorry but that's wrong.

The GT220m is equivalent to the 9650m. Mobile versions are lower performing than their desktop counterparts, so if a GT220m is only slightly worse performing than a 9650 desktop model, there's no way that the 240 is similar to the 9600GT, unless the 240 is worse than the 220 ?

Think before you post, or at least do some research.
[quote name='DukeNukem' post='982971' date='Jan 18 2010, 07:10 AM']9800GT is better than both those cards by a big margin.



And a GT240 is equivalent to a 9600GT, so again a 9800GT is much better.



I'm sorry but that's wrong.



The GT220m is equivalent to the 9650m. Mobile versions are lower performing than their desktop counterparts, so if a GT220m is only slightly worse performing than a 9650 desktop model, there's no way that the 240 is similar to the 9600GT, unless the 240 is worse than the 220 ?



Think before you post, or at least do some research.

#4
Posted 07/20/2010 03:17 AM   
I'm not sure i get exactly what your saying but we are'nt comparing the mobile version's since that's a different breed altogether.
I'm not sure i get exactly what your saying but we are'nt comparing the mobile version's since that's a different breed altogether.

#5
Posted 07/20/2010 03:24 AM   
[quote name='trikstadude3' post='1090608' date='Jul 20 2010, 04:17 AM']I'm sorry but that's wrong.

The GT220m is equivalent to the 9650m. Mobile versions are lower performing than their desktop counterparts, so if a GT220m is only slightly worse performing than a 9650 desktop model, there's no way that the 240 is similar to the 9600GT, unless the 240 is worse than the 220 ?

Think before you post, or at least do some research.[/quote]

The 9650m is not desktop model and a 9600GT is a lot better then a 9650m. So his information is not incorrect and your comparing (like posted already) mobile chips to desktop cards (anything xxxxM is a mobile chip).
[quote name='trikstadude3' post='1090608' date='Jul 20 2010, 04:17 AM']I'm sorry but that's wrong.



The GT220m is equivalent to the 9650m. Mobile versions are lower performing than their desktop counterparts, so if a GT220m is only slightly worse performing than a 9650 desktop model, there's no way that the 240 is similar to the 9600GT, unless the 240 is worse than the 220 ?



Think before you post, or at least do some research.



The 9650m is not desktop model and a 9600GT is a lot better then a 9650m. So his information is not incorrect and your comparing (like posted already) mobile chips to desktop cards (anything xxxxM is a mobile chip).

#6
Posted 07/20/2010 04:21 PM   
Scroll To Top