Nvidia launches new budget graphics cards - do you care?
Posted on 16th Oct 2009 at 11:17 by Clive Webster with 29 comments
After years (well, one at least) of Nvidia saying that it doesn't see the need in DirectX 10.1 because developers aren't demanding it and it has some DX10.1 features in its GT200 design anyway, it's finally made a DX10.1 GPU. However, it isn't a huge high-performance part to rival the HD 5870. It's a low-end part.
Nvidia has also trialled the 40nm fabrication process with this new GeForce GT 220 and GT 210 line-up.
The question is, do you care?
The reason I ask is that we're now firmly in the DX11 era, so an update to DX10.1 seems pointless at this time, even if Nvidia hasn't got its DX11 GPU into the shops yet.
Possibly less encouraging, the new GPUs aren't going to set the frame rate leaderboards alight. The GeForce GT 220 has 48 stream processors while the GeForce GT 210 has only 16. What is the point of these cards as a retail product?
My general problem with cards such as these is that they promise the world for under £50 and yet fail to deliver. Every sub-£50 card I've tested has come in a box with bold claims of super-realistic image quality and amazing performance, but have only yielded a miserable mess of stuttery frame rates and frustration. Even at £50, these cards are been a waste of money unless all you're doing is accelerating HD video or you need something with two video outputs for a multi-monitor setup.
The obvious outcome is that people who have not read the reviews and have bought these cards will be so disillusioned with PC gaming that they'll defect to console-gaming and never look back.
And it seems the industry never learns, as the GT 220 and GT 210 cards come with all sorts of bold claims: "Smooth graphics is no longer reserved for hard core gamers only!", "Packed with 48 cores...", "Experience the vivid DX10.1 gaming graphics at good frame rates, or go beyond traditional 3D graphics experience [with] Stereoscopic 3D and lightning fast video and image processing". Sheesh!
So, Nvidia has finally adopted DX10.1, and has proved that the 40nm process in preparation for Fermi, but does anyone really care about the new GeForce GT 220 or GT 210 beyond that? Thoughts below please!
Nvidia has also trialled the 40nm fabrication process with this new GeForce GT 220 and GT 210 line-up.
The question is, do you care?
The reason I ask is that we're now firmly in the DX11 era, so an update to DX10.1 seems pointless at this time, even if Nvidia hasn't got its DX11 GPU into the shops yet.
Possibly less encouraging, the new GPUs aren't going to set the frame rate leaderboards alight. The GeForce GT 220 has 48 stream processors while the GeForce GT 210 has only 16. What is the point of these cards as a retail product?
My general problem with cards such as these is that they promise the world for under £50 and yet fail to deliver. Every sub-£50 card I've tested has come in a box with bold claims of super-realistic image quality and amazing performance, but have only yielded a miserable mess of stuttery frame rates and frustration. Even at £50, these cards are been a waste of money unless all you're doing is accelerating HD video or you need something with two video outputs for a multi-monitor setup.
The obvious outcome is that people who have not read the reviews and have bought these cards will be so disillusioned with PC gaming that they'll defect to console-gaming and never look back.
And it seems the industry never learns, as the GT 220 and GT 210 cards come with all sorts of bold claims: "Smooth graphics is no longer reserved for hard core gamers only!", "Packed with 48 cores...", "Experience the vivid DX10.1 gaming graphics at good frame rates, or go beyond traditional 3D graphics experience [with] Stereoscopic 3D and lightning fast video and image processing". Sheesh!
So, Nvidia has finally adopted DX10.1, and has proved that the 40nm process in preparation for Fermi, but does anyone really care about the new GeForce GT 220 or GT 210 beyond that? Thoughts below please!
29 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyMy media centre is rather overpowered graphically with my 7800GTX from the time before my shiny GTX260 but I won't be swapping it out for one of these any time soon
would be great to power a multiple monitor workstation, however, to market them at gamers is incredibly irresponsible and tbh very close to libelous
EDIT: Colorful makes a passive G210. Ordered one right now, power consumption seems to be awesome.
Damned good question, at around £50 i'd get one to take the physx load of my gtx 280.
[ ] - Yes!
[ ]
[ ] - Kinda
[ ]
[ ] - No!
x
benchmarks have shown anything below 9600GT will slow down the main graphics when it's dedicated to PhysX.
i would care if i can make it as a hybrid display adaptor, and able to turn off main card. but with ATI 5870's 27w idle.......
I'm glad someone has brought up the "Packed with 48 cores..." syndrome.. a new system builder might fall for this and look at gaming like it's camel balls
Technically speaking: the product is a flaw and a comes with a falsified claim.
I thought it was anything below a 8600GT?
Personally I don't give a f***.
Yea, and they won't be missed by the rest of us.
Have they seen my thumbnail image for this article? :D
So, yes, I do care. I care that nVidia is releasing the same cards over and over again, and not even caring that it's damaging the entire gaming industry. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if someone bought these cards on the basis of seeing a shiny TWIMTBP logo on the box, and subsequently thought that the way it was meant to be played, was on a 1st-generation iPod screen.
I really hate nVidia when they do stuff like this, but on the other hand, I love XFX. It's nice to know my 9600GT from them can hang with nVidia reference-design GT200 parts. That's future-proofing!
Releasing crappy low end cards hurts clueless gamers and their brand name. Let other companies pick up the low end, this would push PC Gaming forward because we wouldnt have to worry about clueless gamers picking up some 1.5 year old card that was weak when it was released.
we also need to get game companies to print REAL minimum requirements to play the game in a satisfactory manner and a lock out from even installing the thing if you do not have the minimum equipment.
UPGRADE!
Yours in "Oh, FFS, nVidia, another G92 card?" plasma?
:-D
On a related note, cheap GPUs are a good thing. Ion speeds up netbooks (a bit), and a £20 card can make the world of difference to an HTPC. It's the constant re-hashing of cards from 2007 as "revolutionary bleeding-edge gaming graphics" that I can't stand!
:(