Gaming performance
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2| Call of Duty: MW2 - 1,280x1,024 - 4x AA medium | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inno3D GeForce GT 240 iChiLL 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 4670 512MB | BFG GeForce GT 240 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 5670 1,024MB | BFG GeForce GTS 250 512MB |
| 49.18 | 47.9 | 47.47 | 59.4 | 74.02 |
| Call of Duty: MW2 - 1,680x1,050 - 4x AA medium | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inno3D GeForce GT 240 iChiLL 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 4670 512MB | BFG GeForce GT 240 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 5670 1,024MB | BFG GeForce GTS 250 512MB |
| 42.89 | 39.58 | 39.97 | 51.21 | 62.49 |
Crysis
| Crysis - 1,280x1,024 0xAA (mainstream) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inno3D GeForce GT 240 iChiLL 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 4670 512MB | BFG GeForce GT 240 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 5670 1,024MB | BFG GeForce GTS 250 512MB |
| 45.46 | 41.35 | 43.52 | 51.36 | 61.83 |
| Crysis - 1,680x1,050 0xAA (mainstream) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inno3D GeForce GT 240 iChiLL 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 4670 512MB | BFG GeForce GT 240 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 5670 1,024MB | BFG GeForce GTS 250 512MB |
| 36.51 | 31.5 | 35.53 | 38.73 | 50.78 |
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
| Enemy Territory: QW - 1,280x1,024 4xAA 16xAF medium | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inno3D GeForce GT 240 iChiLL 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 4670 512MB | BFG GeForce GT 240 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 5670 1,024MB | BFG GeForce GTS 250 512MB |
| 65.67 | 63.25 | 61.65 | 69.9 | 106.15 |
| Enemy Territory: QW - 1,680x1,050 4xAA 16xAF medium | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inno3D GeForce GT 240 iChiLL 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 4670 512MB | BFG GeForce GT 240 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 5670 1,024MB | BFG GeForce GTS 250 512MB |
| 53.07 | 48.85 | 49.8 | 55.6 | 84.1 |
Far Cry 2
| Far Cry 2 - 1,280x1,024 4xAA medium | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inno3D GeForce GT 240 iChiLL 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 4670 512MB | BFG GeForce GT 240 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 5670 1,024MB | BFG GeForce GTS 250 512MB |
| 37.14 | 33.24 | 35.13 | 40.88 | 51.91 |
| Far Cry 2 - 1,680x1,050 0xAA medium | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inno3D GeForce GT 240 iChiLL 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 4670 512MB | BFG GeForce GT 240 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 5670 1,024MB | BFG GeForce GTS 250 512MB |
| 42.21 | 42.15 | 40.52 | 47.26 | 56.38 |
H.A.W.X
| H.A.W.X - 1,280x1,024 4xAA 0xAF medium | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inno3D GeForce GT 240 iChiLL 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 4670 512MB | BFG GeForce GT 240 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 5670 1,024MB | BFG GeForce GTS 250 512MB |
| 68 | 62 | 65.5 | 72 | 86 |
| H.A.W.X - 1,680x1,050 4xAA 0xAF medium | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inno3D GeForce GT 240 iChiLL 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 4670 512MB | BFG GeForce GT 240 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD 5670 1,024MB | BFG GeForce GTS 250 512MB |
| 54 | 48 | 51.5 | 57 | 66.5 |
The H.A.W.X performance is closer because all cards bar the GTS 250 can run the faster DX10.1 codepath.
Overall performance for the Inno card is a little better than a default-clocked GeForce GT 240 GDDR5, which is naturally to be expected. Run at mid-range settings across the five games, the Inno3D card is slightly quicker than a Radeon HD 4670 but slightly slower than the HD 5670. The innate problem here is that the HD 4670 costs substantially less.
Move to the next model up and the GTS 250 is a fundamentally faster GPU, clearly.
