Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NVIDIA Ships Decent DX10 Graphics Card For Under $100

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the stay-out-of-the-uncanny-valley dept.

Graphics 208

MojoKid writes "NVIDIA is launching a new mainstream graphics card today, aimed at consumers in the market for a relatively low-cost upgrade from an integrated graphics solution or older entry-level GPU. The new GeForce GT 240 features a GPU with 96 processor cores, 8 ROP units, and 32 texture filtering units. The GPU is manufactured using a 40nm process, features a GDDR5 memory controller (that's also compatible with GDDR3), and unlike NVIDIA's current high-end GPUs, the GT 240 is DirectX 10.1 compatible. For $100 or less, what's perhaps most interesting is that this graphics card actually puts up respectable frame rates with AA turned on and no external power needed beyond what a standard PCIe slot provides."

cancel ×

208 comments

nVidia 9400M (3, Interesting)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135268)

How does the GT240 compare to a 9400M?

Re:nVidia 9400M (1, Interesting)

imbaczek (690596) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135316)

apples to oranges.

Re:nVidia 9400M (1, Funny)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135456)

I like apples.

Re:nVidia 9400M (3, Funny)

Nikker (749551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135496)

I like turtles.

Re:nVidia 9400M (1)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135670)

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana

Re:nVidia 9400M (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30135690)

I like turtles.

They come with a built in cooking pot. :)

Re:nVidia 9400M (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30135970)

You're a great zombie, there!

Re:nVidia 9400M (1)

isama (1537121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135684)

I like pc's

Re:nVidia 9400M (1)

GarretSidzaka (1417217) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135326)

good question. i mean is this card going to be worth it?

will it bring high-end PC game performance to the casual gamers?

Re:nVidia 9400M (2, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136370)

High-end PC game performance is already available to casual gamers.

I put a Radeon 4650 in my new machine and it runs Crysis on high and handles very new games like Borderlands and COD Modern Warfare 2 without trouble. The machine is nothing special really. An i5 that cost me about $750 to build.

Just for laughs, I put the 4650 in my i7 Win7 system (1366 socket) that I normally use for music production, and it drove my two big monitors beautifully.

I've just ordered another 4650 (about $60) for the i7. It uses very little power.

Re:nVidia 9400M (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136998)

Wow. It's amazing how prices have come down.

I've been busy moving / getting laid off (yay recession!) / starting a new job / fixing up my house for the last 3 years and pretty much stopped following the component market.

I'm still using an Athlon 64 3500+ (socket 939) on an Asus A8V Deluxe motherboard. That's an AGP motherboard for anyone who cares. So I have an Nvidia 7600GS AGP card. 2 GB Ram running Windows XP SP3.

I think my setup is at least 4 years old, possibly 5 or 6. I've honestly lost track. but it's still going strong, even though I just had to replace my DVD burner as my 6 year old Lite-On burner finally gave up the ghost and wouldn't read discs of any kind anymore.

Maybe it's time to upgrade...

Re:nVidia 9400M (2, Informative)

hatemonger (1671340) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135356)

It's a little better: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gt-240,2475-8.html [tomshardware.com]

Re:nVidia 9400M (2, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135520)

barely at best, it's still slower than an 8800GT. You can almost get a 4870 for less than that. [newegg.com] which would be DX11 compatible/significantly faster. Or get a 4850 which is still significantly faster and DX10.1.

basically, this was a bad move by nvidia, but it's all they have at the moment.

Re:nVidia 9400M (2, Informative)

hatemonger (1671340) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135666)

You can almost get a 4870 for less than that which would be DX11 compatible/significantly faster.

Uh, no. That would be 10.1 on any ATI card that starts with 4. Nice try, though.

Re:nVidia 9400M (2, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135760)

try again. [tomshardware.com]

DirectX 11 Support for hardware
tessellation will be an explicit part of the DirectX standard for the first time. To date, ATI's HD 2000, 3000, and 4000 series have all contained a hardware tessellation unit

DX11 and DX10.1 will be sharing a lot of features. DX10.0 does not. All the people getting an 8800gt for example, got screwed by that. I'm glad NV has a DX10.1 solution, but when will anyone have a copy of the DX11 card to test?

Sorry though, I meant to link the 5750, I was looking through stuff. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102859 [newegg.com]

Re:nVidia 9400M (1, Flamebait)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135704)

Yeah, but with ATI you have to deal with their driver bugs.

Re:nVidia 9400M (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135756)

Hmmm, wasnt it nvidia that was responsible for most of the vista driver debacle?

Re:nVidia 9400M (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136146)

You mean the one that's been fixed for 3+ years? Yes that was them.

Re:nVidia 9400M (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30136884)

3+ years LOL what sort of dream world do you live in. I had a 8800 GTS when vista was released. There was not even a vista driver available for 4 months after vista was available and then it took them another 8 months to get a moderately stable driver. I sold my 8800 after a total of 9 months of not being able to use my card with my vista machine, in which time I lodged many complaints with Nvidia and plagued there forums with detailed bug information to try and get the shit fixed and had friends who went to small claims court to get a refund from nvidia for its support lies.. Vista was launched nov 2006. Was not till nov the following year when they were finally starting to stabilise a driver (about 3 months after I sold my nvidia POS. so that is 2 years at most since they started to address the problems, and a good year of living hell for formerly loyal customers)

Re:nVidia 9400M (1)

bmw (115903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135802)

Yeah, but with ATI you have to deal with their driver bugs.

You say that as if nvidia hasn't had their fair share of driver problems.

Re:nVidia 9400M (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30135878)

Yeah, but with ATI you have to deal with their driver bugs.

You say that as if nvidia hasn't had their fair share of driver problems.

But some of us actually like hardware acceleration on OpenGL; always a problem on ATI.

Re:nVidia 9400M (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136954)

Uhh, wrong way around mate.

Nvidia were the ones who ditched OpenGL support in Vista and refused to update their drivers.

Re:nVidia 9400M (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136216)

Of course they've had issues of their own, but I've dealt with both and find it far easier to deal with nvidia's. With ATI I had to deal with monitor settings being forgotten, blurry display output, memory hogging driver interfaces, application windows being resized incorrectly, horrible multi-monitor support, and quite a few other problems.

Re:nVidia 9400M (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136368)

far easier to deal with nvidia's

well gee, since you put it so factual like that and all!

Or we can look at reality: settings don't get forgotten, there's no blurry display output, and they have the best multimonitor support out now with eyefinity. Maybe there were many versions ago, but both nvidia and amd likely do not have these problems at this point.

I'm not saying AMD is better than Nvidia or vice versa in my comment here - both companies have had their shares of hiccups and successes along the way and everyone has their preference - but your example is so illogical it astounds me. It's like "I had a bad day today and I bought AMD today too, so amd sucks".

Re:nVidia 9400M (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136798)

Deal with the annoying ATI bugs or deal with Nvidia shithouse drivers constantly crashing your machine while Nvidia point the finger at anyone but themselves....hmmmm tough choice.

Radeons don't have video acceleration (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30136052)

Some day, ATI will have better drivers than Nvidia, and they'll even be open source. But today, Radeons don't have video acceleration at all, and certainly nothing nearly in the same league as VDPAU.

And video acceleration is the main reason someone would have a 9400M.

You're telling people to upgrade from something that works, to something that doesn't work. The original poster was probably asking if 9400M to GT240 would be an upgrade from something that works, to something that works better.

Anyway, to answer the question: with the GT240, you get MPEG4 acceleration. My dual-core Atom can already play MPEG4 with CPU, but it does sometimes tear, unlike MPEG2, h.264, etc. Doing that with dedicated hardware (which a top-of-the-line most-expensive Radeon that money can buy, is unable to do) would be pretty sweet.

Re:Radeons don't have video acceleration (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30136574)

This changed recently: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_xvba_vaapi&num=1 .

But yes, at the moment it doesn't even compare to VDPAU in features, adoption and availability.

Re:nVidia 9400M (2, Informative)

toddbanng (1498667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135754)

Um. in the realm of great video cards, RADEON currently holds it with the 5870 series of HD cards, which are already DX11 ready and blow the socks off of anything Nvidia has, esp. in CrossFire configs. What I don't understand is why Nvidia drops this to market now, when it's still chewing on whether it'll do anything with DX 11? By that time, RADEON/ATI will be on it's 2nd Gen of their great HD cards, and Nvidia "might" be just rolling their out? Don't get me wrong, but onboard graphics are eons from the capacity of these cards, esp. in dual or triple SLI configs -and when you see the difference (which few do) I would guess that most folks would not be buying Dell, HP, EMachines crap online and building their own or looking at Cyberpower, Poly, MicroExpress, Falcon and others more regularly. Decent card only for what it does - do not expect to play ANY DX10 or DX 11 game in a decent FPS - it just can't do it!

Re:nVidia 9400M (1)

WaroDaBeast (1211048) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136746)

The review over at Guru3D [guru3d.com] shows that it fits between an HD4670 and a 9600GT performance-wise. As for video acceleration, you're looking at a VP4 engine [wikipedia.org] .

Sweet. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30135302)

Finally time for a standard PCI-E graphics solution? Death to integrated graphics!

Re:Sweet. (4, Insightful)

Jeng (926980) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135382)

Integrated graphics aren't bad by design, just implementation.

This or better could be integrated, but instead what ends up as integrated graphics is the most bottom barrel POS that is barely capable of displaying a desktop wallpaper.

If they can stick it in a laptop, they can put it on a motherboard.

why can more Integrated have there own ram? ati do (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135494)

why can more Integrated have there own ram? ati does why not intel? nvidia?

Intel is crap and I hope apple does not go back to them with the corei3 cpu.

Re:why can more Integrated have there own ram? ati (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30135672)

Proof that all Apple fanboys are hapless toddlers whose fanaticism for brands is exceeded only by their ignorance of the English language.

Re:why can more Integrated have there own ram? ati (1)

pleappleappleap (1182301) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136044)

The level of idiocy you exhibit with the "logic" in your statement astounds me.

Re:why can more Integrated have there own ram? ati (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136952)

why can more Integrated have there own ram? ati does why not intel?

Note, just in case you go laptop shopping: THIS IS NO LONGER TRUE.

Revise it to 'ati sometimes does and sometimes does not' and you'll not wind up having to pay a restocking fee...

Re:Sweet. (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136134)

Integrated graphics aren't bad by design, just implementation.

Quite true.

This or better could be integrated, but instead what ends up as integrated graphics is the most bottom barrel POS that is barely capable of displaying a desktop wallpaper.

Actually, integrated Intel graphics are perfectly capable of nice 3D and video, just not the latest games. The older of my two Intel systems has a 855GME from around 2004, and it plays 720p H.264 and Tuxracer just fine. These days I mostly use the 3D capabilities for molecular visualization. I have also tested all the fancy desktop effects, though I do not like using them in practice.

Most importantly though, I like to use open source drivers without any extra hacks, meaning mainline Linux and Xorg. So I'm not really sure what I'm doing in a discussion about DX10 ;)

Re:Sweet. (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136472)

Hey, I'll have you know my integrated Nvidia 7100 can play Gothic 1 at 1280x1024 with max settings! (My POS 8800GT freezes on many older games, so I run a dual-GPU dual-monitor setup for such occasions.)

Only if standard with passive cooling... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137120)

For me, the main potential benefit for such "low power" GFX chips is their low power draw, which might give total silence with passive cooling or near silence with large, slow & quiet fan.

But practically all cheap cards come with small and whining cooling fans nowadays... (and no, finding an aftermarket solution for such card if no passive ones are readily available (nvm that they are often...a bit more expensive) is not exactly a viable option due to large, comparativelly, additional cost)

Integrated GFX at least comes with a passive cooling as a standard feature... (c'mon, they can do it with almost microscopic heatsinks on integrated GFX, they can't with such cards?...)

Tom's Hardware Link (4, Informative)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135310)

I prefer the performance graphs/comparisons at Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com] .

Re:Tom's Hardware Link (3, Interesting)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135464)

I looked into this a little bit. It looks like it's more or less the same performance as my 512mb 8800 GT. Anyone else confirm that? So this is mainly just a power and price thing...

Re:Tom's Hardware Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30135712)

It's really not the same performance, the 128-bit memory interface is the Achilles' heel as usual. nVidia's on some tough times right now. They are just filling a hole in the market, as several of the venerable choices at this price point are no longer readily in stock (AMD/ATI 4830 and 8800/9800GT).

Re:Tom's Hardware Link (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135772)

Well... how about same "practical" performance; e.g., fps. :)

Re:Tom's Hardware Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30135830)

the benchmarks are already linked in the tom's article, maybe look a little bit more.

Re:Tom's Hardware Link (4, Funny)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135838)

Are you asking if your top range, two generation old graphics card is now having its performance matched by a low end, current generation graphics card?

Re:Tom's Hardware Link (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135990)

No, I was asking if there was an improvement on my top range two generation old graphics card. They are only matching it with this new low-end card, in other words... so the main gain, it seems, is power consumption.

Re:Tom's Hardware Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30136280)

And DX10.1, if that's important to you.

Re:Tom's Hardware Link (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136566)

The 8800GT is hardly a top end card, it's perhaps a mid-high card at most, generally it would be considered a mid range card. The 8800 GTX and then later the 8800 Ultra would be the top end cards in the 8 series.

Great.. (1)

sc0ob5 (836562) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135320)

Now can we have it in low profile please?

Re:Great.. (1)

dagamer34 (1012833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135524)

Probably sucks up too much power. I'd rather have a low profile Radeon HD 5650 or 5670 for my HTPC since it supports Dolby Digital TrueHD and DTS HD Master Audio bitstreaming.

Re:Great.. (1)

sc0ob5 (836562) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135706)

Well it doesn't take an extra power adapter.. I really don't mind what it is but something that actually has a bit of power would be nice. Also I run my HTPC on Linux so I'm not sure those fancy audio features are working yet on the ATI drivers, and what about hardware decoding?? I currently have a 8400GS ticking away in my system quite nicely, not really much good for anything but decoding..

Re:Great.. (2, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135782)

This card is VDPAU Featur Set C. Which is the
Currently, the portions capable of being offloaded by VDPAU onto the GPU are motion compensation (mo comp), inverse discrete cosine transform (iDCT) and VLD (Variable-Length Decoding) for MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4 ASP (MPEG-4 Part 2), MPEG-4 AVC (H.264 / DivX 6), VC-1, WMV3/WMV9, Xvid / OpenDivX (DivX 4), and DivX 5 encoded videos.

My CPU never broke 10% with anything from Xvid to 1080p x264.

Now if we could only get the sound working [ubuntuforums.org]

Last I checked AMD just finally released XvBA with features that VDPAU had last year.

Um, so? (3, Interesting)

hatemonger (1671340) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135322)

While I understand that there is a psychological influence of the whole "under $100" mark, is it really that much different than the standard price reductions and increasing power of graphics cards over time?

Re:Um, so? (0)

JDeane (1402533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135614)

I know the market is so weird right now I just got a 4870 with 1GB of GDDR5 for close to $150, I know its not under $100 but its worth the extra bit of scratch to know I can actually play some games.

To me the low end cards almost seem like a waste of money they are not fast enough to play the newest games at a good quality and if they do they will not play next years games (while a top end one can at least limp along for a few years) I guess my opinion would be buy one of these cards every year or buy one that costs twice as much and get two to three years of use out it.

I probably am not the target of these cards though, maybe Grandma just likes her screen saver fish to swim smooth.....

Re:Um, so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30135662)

One word - DELL

Re:Um, so? (1)

hatemonger (1671340) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135816)

Three words - why waste money?

Re:Um, so? (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136198)

I probably am not the target of these cards though, maybe Grandma just likes her screen saver fish to swim smooth.....

Or her Vista SP^H^H^H^H^H Win7 Aero desktop effects.

Re:Um, so? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136364)

Or her Vista SP^H^H^H^H^H Win7 Aero desktop effects.

Joke, obviously... but Win 7 with Aero effects runs fine on my old Dell E1505 laptop, which doesn't have a super duper video card. It's an ATI Mobility X1400 (256mb).

Re:Um, so? (1)

timbck2 (233967) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136636)

Another data point - Win 7 Aero runs just fine on my work machine as well - it has an old Nvidia Quadro NVS 285 with 128MB onboard (plus 768MB system memory it uses). It's driving two displays too.

Re:Um, so? (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136878)

It runs fine on any dedicated video card from what I've seen. The problem with Aero is trying to run it with standard, built in graphics on the board. If you have a 3d accelerated card, even an old one like yours, Aero will run fine. The key being 3d accelerated.

Re:Um, so? (1)

timbck2 (233967) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136964)

That makes sense. I should note that my video card has the lowest rating on the "Windows Experience Index" scale on my machine as well - 3.2 for Aero and 3.1 for Gaming graphics, while everything else rates significantly higher: Processor = 6.7 (two dual-core Xeons), RAM = 5.5, and Disk = 5.9.

Re:Um, so? (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135688)

Feature set.

I'm out of the PC Gaming scene(in fact, my computer is Grape. [penny-arcade.com] ).

But I do understand the idea of building a sub 500 dollar PC that supports Windows 7 and nearly any game you awnt to throw at it though.

Re:Um, so? (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135958)

The performance is increasing per dollar, but the manufacturing of the video cards is an almost set price.

Much like with hard drives, yes there are 2 terabyte hard drives for around $200, but that does not mean that you can find a (recently manufactured) 200 gig hard drive for $20. The cost of all the sub-systems sets the base price.

Re:Um, so? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137148)

With such cards you're buying also low power draw (now, if only that was actually seriously utilised with passive cooling as standard...)

GPU Card Size (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30135392)

Will it fit in the motherboard? Does it take up two slots? The trend with graphics boards is to make them way too big and bulky. It's ridiculous.

I use linux, but I tried both an AMD and Nvidia card from the recent generation, both of which were pains to install and still barely fit. Both eat a regular PCI slot when installed. And both take up two slots on the back of the tower.

It's just not worth it for the meager performance you get on linux with a decent card (in the case of AMD, if the drivers work). I would think that more lower-end, lower-power and smaller cards would be coming around. It looks like Nvidia is giving that a shot.

Re:GPU Card Size (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135552)

The trend with graphics boards is to make them way too big and bulky. It's ridiculous.

Considering the fact that it has it's on GPU, a significant amount of onboard RAM, it's own BUS and all that, and multiple outputs... AND cooling systems (heatsink, fans) ... it's really not all that big. It's smaller, most likely, than your motherboard, and has almost the same features. And with the newer cards with their crazy GPU specs, heat production, onboard RAM, outputs AND inputs, etc ... it's really not that big and bulky.

I suppose it is in comparison to the old 4mb 2D video cards, but.. :)

Re:GPU Card Size (1)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135702)

I suppose it is in comparison to the old 4mb 2D video cards, but.. :)

I don't know about that as at one time I had an ancient VESA card that extended nearly the length of the AT box I found it in.

Re:GPU Card Size (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135808)

I remember having a not-so-ancient 2D video card that was fairly small. The Diamond Monster 3D [Accelerator] [tomshardware.com] card that I got later, on the other hand, was pretty large :)

Re:GPU Card Size (1)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135794)

Actually i've got an old 2MB (i think it was too anyway, i don't have a working machine that can use the damned thing to find out) ISA card thats significantly larger than any of the current ones i own, mostly because of the fact that its got about 32-64 small memory ICs on it, and its much longer because it uses the VESA local bus that very few motherboards i ever knew had.

Re:GPU Card Size (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30136394)

Considering the fact that it has it's on GPU, a significant amount of onboard RAM, it's own BUS and all that,

Sentence fail.

Re:GPU Card Size (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135880)

If you really miss the slot that modern video cards eat up, you could always get an extender [criticalcables.com] . Too much money, IMHO, and some case assembly may be required, but, then, how much is it to you?

So, I have a question... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30135462)

If a device can display video at 1080p 24+ frames per second, what's the point of more?

It shouldn't require specialized hardware or dedicated or expensive equipment for High Definition(HD) video. And, if 1080p is great for a 50" screen, whats the point of higher resolution on a far smaller screen?

Re:So, I have a question... (3, Informative)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135514)

If a device can display video at 1080p 24+ frames per second, what's the point of more?

Displaying a video and rendering a 3d scene are two entirely different things. With a video you don't need textures, bump mapping, or dynamic lighting, you just play the frames.

Re:So, I have a question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30135822)

Displaying a video and rendering a 3d scene are two entirely different things. With rendering you don't need IDCTs, motion compensation (with sub-pixel precision, too), or deblocking filters, you just render the frames.

Re:So, I have a question... (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136238)

Unless you put video on a texture.

Re:So, I have a question... (1)

dagamer34 (1012833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135550)

Iono, maybe because your eyes are closer to that "smaller screen"?

Re:So, I have a question... (1)

Tristor (787134) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135578)

Screen Real Estate

Re:So, I have a question... (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135694)

It's not about displaying video, it's about rendering 3D scenes. Any old suck card can do 1080p24 (or 1080p60 for that matter). It takes a lot of horsepower to handle realtime rendering at high resolution.

As for why the higher resolution, it's because you're sitting closer and the more details the better. Even in the video domain 3840x2160, if shot natively, would look better on a 60"+ TV than 1080p. Not amazingly better, and of course there is a point of diminishing returns, but...

Re:So, I have a question... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136642)

...actually no: No random piece of crap will be able to handle 1080p h264.

This is what separates an ION from an Atom (with the i945).

It's 3D rendering that's relatively mundane in this context.

how do ati cards at the same price do next to this (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135546)

how do ati cards at the same price do next to this?

Re:how do ati cards at the same price do next to t (4, Informative)

jandrese (485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135710)

ATI really doesn't have a card at this price point, which is probably why nVidia came up with this guy, to try to snap up the marketshare on people who have $100 to spend on a video card. Their old product at this price point was discontinued, but the replacement should be out in a couple of months or so.

Re:how do ati cards at the same price do next to t (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136360)

Mainstream ATI competitor is the 4650, which is in current production and available for less then $80. That's what Nvidia is competing against. Specs are a DX10.1, 1GB of DDR3 and no external power needed. Very nice and I'm looking at one as an upgrade from a 7300GT, which is a meager DX9 card with only 256 onboard.

ATI's Radeon HD4770 beats it (1)

Manfesto (865869) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135972)

ATI's Radeon HD4770 would be this card's analogue (mainstream DX10 hardware around $100) - widely available at around $110 on Newegg, and according to this review:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,699611/Geforce-GT-240-Nvidias-fastest-DirectX-101-graphics-card-reviewed/Reviews/ [pcgameshardware.com]

Handily beats this GT240 across the board. I'd say it's worth more than the extra $10.

Moreover, I think it's a shame this is so far the only review I've found comparing the GT240 to the HD4770. The above review pits it against the HD5750 and HD5770, which are in a completely different league, being DX11 hardware.

But will it run Crysis? (1)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135556)

Surprisingly, it almost can [tomshardware.com]

Re:But will it run Crysis? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30135850)

Can you clarify your use of the word almost? I read that chart as 30-60fps depending on resolution.

Are my standards too low?

Re:But will it run Crysis? (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136400)

Is it telling that they didn't bother to benchmark it with AA/AF turned on?

The Crysis demo became near unplayable on my 8800GT at 1280x1024 High detail when I cranked up AA to 4x.

meanwhile ATI announces 4.6TFLOPS Radeon 5970 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30135568)

this is the best NVidia can do to try to answer the Radeon 5970 announcement tomorrow?

GPU (0)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 4 years ago | (#30135924)

these graphics cards, in addition to today's or the future's implementation of Grand Central Dispatch, are really going to be powerful for processing arbitrary data.

Re:GPU (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30136230)

nice buzzword bingo shithead, but nobody's going to mod you up

Re:GPU (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136710)

They already sell nvidia GPUs for general purpose number crunching. There are Linux vendors that sell ready made solutions.

Dear NVidia, (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30136008)

Nice chip. I'm waiting until you make a 40nm GPU that beats the 9800GT. 40mn is required because heat and noise are crucial to me. All of your fast 2xx series stuff is hot and power hungry, so I haven't moved.

Listen carefully: My magic price point is $200 or less. TPD must be no more than approximately 100W, ah la the 9800GT. I want 1GB (but I'll settle for 768) because 512MB is too small now. I have never cared about SLI and I won't start anytime soon. I *DO* care about heat and noise, so make these damn card builders use good cooling, which I define as "can tolerate less than perfect airflow (because fan filled holes = noise) using 1 large, quiet fan, at FULL load."

Do that and I'll upgrade. Don't and I'll look very hard at Larrabee...

  - Loyal NVidia buyer

Re:Dear NVidia, (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136140)

buy an after market cooler.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2000110000+50001647+40000576&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&Subcategory=-1&description=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc= [newegg.com]

But shop sub $170 then. I still use my 6600 GT, so I am way behind, but one of these in silent mode cooled better than the stock by far (actually as a massive heatsink it compared to the stock GPU even).

DirectX 10.whatever? Who cares? (1, Insightful)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136130)

Does it come with a free software driver, or at least include specs so you can write your own? If not, why does it deserve a Slashdot front page headline? There are plenty of Windows gaming sites for those who want that kind of thing.

Re:DirectX 10.whatever? Who cares? (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136816)

The vast majority of Slashdot readers do not write graphics drivers. A great many people here probably do not even use Linux.

I would even hazard a guess that there are far more people here who play computer games than there are people who would be able to do anything even if they did have the full hardware specs of an Nvidia card.

I care (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136946)

Does it come with a free software driver, or at least include specs so you can write your own? If not, why does it deserve a Slashdot front page headline? There are plenty of Windows gaming sites for those who want that kind of thing.

There are gamers and home video enthusiasts more than willing to download and install the fully functional proprietary driver. The binary blob. Particularly between now and December 25th. Not so many equipted to write the open source driver, even if they had the time and the specs.

too little too late (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30136154)

The 4850 has been at the $100 mark (on sale) for months now. The 4770 would qualify too but it never really was pushed out in huge supply. Both equal or best the 9800GTX in sheer power. So what's the big deal?

Vs. GTS 250? (1)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136210)

Anyone know how this compares to a GTS 250-based card [nvidia.com] ? As those are also DX10-compliant and can be easily found for around $120 [newegg.com] , I'm not sure what the value of this new model is... beyond the psychological impact of hitting the magic $99 price point, of course.

HD 1080p? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136328)

Can this card render HD 1080p@30FPS? What's the puniest Pentium that can deliver that HD data to it fast enough from a SATA drive?

And is there a Linux driver?

Yay! Re-badged 9800GT FTW! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136414)

Come on, nVidia... Stop with the re-branding already.

This is just a die-shrunk 9800 GT, which was just a die-shrunk 8800 GT.

Yes, it's a great card for $100. But stop misleading people into thinking it's the same tech as the GTX 260-285.

(They did the same with the "GTS 250", which is just a re-badged 9800 GTX, which was just a re-badged 8800 GTS.)

Re:Yay! Re-badged 9800GT FTW! (2, Informative)

Carra (1220410) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136860)

The've been doing it for ages.

A geforce 4 mx was based on the geforce 2 chip set. So it was not only weaker then the other geforce 4 cards, it was also weaker then the previous, third generation. The reason that they keep doing this is quite simple, they sold [wikipedia.org] even if every magazine listed is as a must avoid:

"Despite harsh criticism by gaming enthusiasts, the GeForce4 MX was a market success. Priced about 30% above the GeForce 2 MX, it provided better performance, the ability to play a number of popular games that the GeForce 2 could not run well—above all else—to the average non-specialist it sounded as if it were a "real" GeForce4—i.e., a GeForce4 Ti. Although it was frequently out-performed by the older and more expensive GeForce 3, many buyers were unaware, particularly as Nvidia was quick not to let the GeForce 3 remain on the market. GeForce 4 MX was particularly successful in the PC OEM market, and rapidly replaced the GeForce 2 MX as the best-selling GPU.".

What's with that hedline (2, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136662)

I paid 76 dollars for my 9600 GT, fanless, and it' is direct x 10 compatible.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...