bit-tech.net

Nvidia launches new budget graphics cards - do you care?

Posted on 16th Oct 2009 at 11:17 by Clive Webster with 29 comments

Clive Webster
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?

Nvidia launches new budget graphics cards - do you care?Nvidia launches new budget graphics cards - do you care?

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 Reply
doggeh 16th October 2009, 12:36 Quote
Those fans look like they'd be noisy so probs not even good for a media centre :(
My 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
Comet 16th October 2009, 14:31 Quote
Oh boy. This companies need to learn that this hurts the market instead of helping.
yakyb 16th October 2009, 14:47 Quote
i am tbh (if i didnt already have a few low power aTI cards)

would be great to power a multiple monitor workstation, however, to market them at gamers is incredibly irresponsible and tbh very close to libelous
yakyb 16th October 2009, 14:49 Quote
on second thoughts what is the perormance of cuda on these things are they say capable of running physx on batman for example
stonedsurd 16th October 2009, 14:51 Quote
Quote:
Nvidia launches new budget graphics cards - do you care?
No, and neither should you.
Vimesey 16th October 2009, 15:39 Quote
I sometimes do pc builds for people who's pc might be stressed the most when playing sims 2, so budgt cards are always good for those sort of pc builds.
Aterius Gmork 16th October 2009, 15:45 Quote
I'd care if they were passive tbh... they'd be great for the internet rig which only has to be up to UT2004 on medium. Noisy fan = FAIL.

EDIT: Colorful makes a passive G210. Ordered one right now, power consumption seems to be awesome.
Ending Credits 16th October 2009, 16:52 Quote
I was listening to someone who was claiming their GT100 was a gamer card; I honestly wanted to kill myself.
l3v1ck 16th October 2009, 16:54 Quote
I might care. I'm building my dad a new PC next year and it will need a budget (ie non gaming GPU). As long as it can happily decode video etc and it as the right price I may buy it.
Dave Lister 16th October 2009, 18:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakyb
on second thoughts what is the perormance of cuda on these things are they say capable of running physx on batman for example

Damned good question, at around £50 i'd get one to take the physx load of my gtx 280.
Horizon 16th October 2009, 19:16 Quote
They're pointless really since there are 9-series parts for the same money that just mop the floor with the new g/gt parts.
nicae 16th October 2009, 23:36 Quote
Quote:
The question is, do you care?

[ ] - Yes!
[ ]
[ ] - Kinda
[ ]
[ ] - No!

x
wuyanxu 17th October 2009, 00:14 Quote
i don't think they'd actually speed up PhysX, rather make the more powerful GPU wait for it to calculate PhysX.

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.......
thehippoz 17th October 2009, 00:51 Quote
that's a good point wu..

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
Abdul Hadi 17th October 2009, 07:34 Quote
Generally speaking: Well someone has to care for entry level customers. Besides they have a pocket of the size of their brains. So I guess it fits.

Technically speaking: the product is a flaw and a comes with a falsified claim.
gurusan 17th October 2009, 10:00 Quote
I think they are fail cards personally, they don't really fit anywhere in the market unless they were a good bit cheaper.
alpaca 17th October 2009, 23:57 Quote
the right one is kinda cute
quake1-rules 18th October 2009, 10:24 Quote
Sell your nvidia stock now.
xaser04 19th October 2009, 10:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
i don't think they'd actually speed up PhysX, rather make the more powerful GPU wait for it to calculate PhysX.

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 thought it was anything below a 8600GT?
SlowMotionSuicide 19th October 2009, 14:40 Quote
Anandtech had a good opinion as why these cards exists - so that OEM's who mostly equip their machines with overpriced crap may tick the DX10.1 box on marketing flyers.

Personally I don't give a f***.
Quote:
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.

Yea, and they won't be missed by the rest of us.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 20th October 2009, 03:15 Quote
Do I care? Hell no! And it's obvious Nvidia doesn't care either. Doesn't ATI have intergrated graphics cards with as much power or more than these? (HD 3300) I guess if I was running windows 98 then maybe I would care about these cards.
Claave 20th October 2009, 19:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowMotionSuicide
Anandtech had a good opinion as why these cards exists - so that OEM's who mostly equip their machines with overpriced crap may tick the DX10.1 box on marketing flyers.

Have they seen my thumbnail image for this article? :D
gavomatic57 21st October 2009, 17:47 Quote
I care because it means their 40nm fabs are up and running, so it won't be too long before Fermi arrives, but these cards are a bit low end for my tastes.
MaverickWill 22nd October 2009, 08:16 Quote
Aren't the GT220 and GT210 just old 9-series parts anyway? I'm sure the GT220 was the 9500GT, which you could pay a fiver for, and still feel like you were ripped off. Or pay £300 for it as an upgrade in your shiny new Mac, and feel superior. I believe CPC described any claims it could play games as "not to be taken with a pinch of salt, but a Hercules C-130 full of salt" in their Mac-Killer article.

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!
Azh_fx 22nd October 2009, 08:25 Quote
i bet its some form of previous generation of graphics card renamed :p
Star*Dagger 23rd October 2009, 21:24 Quote
Nvidia should release High end (600$), high performance (300-500$) and medium (150 to 250$).
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!
MaverickWill 23rd October 2009, 21:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
Nvidia should release High end (600$), high performance (300-500$) and medium (150 to 250$).
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!
MaverickWill 23rd October 2009, 21:41 Quote
Argh, double post. I hate Orange's 3G network sometimes. Sowwie!

:(
dec 25th October 2009, 21:29 Quote
so which rebranded gpus are these?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums
BitFenix Pandora Review

BitFenix Pandora Review

26th September 2014

Corsair Gaming K70 RGB Review

Corsair Gaming K70 RGB Review

22nd September 2014