Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software Hardware

Nvidia Launches New Affordable GPU 321

mikemuch writes "Today Nvidia unveiled a new low-cost, high-power graphics processor SKU. ExtremeTech's Jason Cross has done all the benchmarking, and concludes ' This makes for an impressive bargain and a huge step up from the generic GeForce 6800. The big question: How will this fare against ATI's similarly priced X1000 series card, the Radeon X1600 XT?'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nvidia Launches New Affordable GPU

Comments Filter:
  • by mechsoph ( 716782 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @01:56PM (#13971032)
    If they're only offering binary drivers and locking up the specs, I'll be sticking with my aging, but still quite capable, Radeon.
  • Re:This is insanse (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @02:02PM (#13971128)
    This is especially true when the newest console is only $300. I like PC gaming more than console gaming, but in the last year, i've switched to consoles because its just so much cheaper. In about the time that a console stays around, 3 years, you'll upgrade your video card a couple times, or upgrade it once and spend twice as much. Meaning that just the video card(s), not including all the other upgrades necessary will cost as much as the console. I got tired of trying to keep in my head which video card is good, because there is about 75 models out there, and which one has the proper drivers to support the games I will want to play. Also, what bothers me is that if I upgrade my operating system, my video card which is a few years old might not have supported drivers, or if I buy a new card, it may not work in my older operating system, forcing me to upgrade. I really gave PC gaming a chance, but there's just too much hassle. I'd rather put up with games that don't look quite as good, or maybe are a little less fun to play, for not having to deal with the frustrations of playing games on PC.
  • by slashedmydot ( 927745 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @02:03PM (#13971141) Homepage
    I don't think your graphicscard is the problem. My testmachine has an ATI Rage Pro 4MB PCI graphicscard and it runs perfectly with the latest X. So I doubt that an ATI Rage 128 isn't good enough.

    Your CPU or the amount of RAM is the most probable cause of the slow performance.
  • by squoozer ( 730327 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @02:22PM (#13971361)

    Is there a technolgical reason why multiple GPUs can't be put on a card? I freely admit I know very little about graphics cards but it seems like it might be a cheap way to make a very powerful card. I seem to remember there was a card with two processors on that failed dismally because basically twice the price. What about a card with 4 or 8 cheap processors? Ok the power consumption would be silly but as long as it could be throttled so that when not playing a game only 1 GPU was used it might work. Just thought I'd share that with you all :o)

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @03:22PM (#13972072) Homepage
    GeForce 6800 GS - $249, according to NVidia.
    GeForce 6800 GT - $266, according to PriceGrabber.

    The cheaper model has 12 instead of 16 pixel shaders, and 5 instead of 6 vertex shaders. They probably use the same chip. The benchmarks are close. $17 cheaper. Big deal.

    In terms of price/performance, Via is probably the leader. They've just introduced some new S3 Chrome [techspot.com] boards that are roughly comparable to the GEForce 6800 line, but are priced around $150. That technology will probably be in Via's motherboard chipsets soon, at an even lower price.

  • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @03:39PM (#13972259)
    Notice that it has less pixel pipes. There are 4 blocks of 4 on a 6800 series chip, and one of those is disabled. However, the chip is clocked faster. My guess is they have found that they are still having a number of chips that one of the four blocks will fail on, espically at higher speeds. Ok so just make a new line of cards that only has three active at a higher speed and sell it. Gamers are happy, and you get to use more of your production capacity.
  • by c_spencer100 ( 714310 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @03:41PM (#13972272)
    Dude, that chart is terrible. You forget that the GPU is least important piece of hardware, and their are other components utilizing the power supply. Using 200 of 300 watts is decent, but it isn't going to cut it. What about the CPU, case fans, and the cdrom that now ALL games require. How about they rework the way the GPU functions - something similar to what intel did to make the Pentium M.

    Look at this [anandtech.com] website to get another look at power consumption.
  • by Jthon ( 595383 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @04:03PM (#13972498)
    They also currently win in GPU volumes (and revenue). Intel is the largest GPU manufactuer followed by ATI, and NVIDIA in a close third. Thing is ATI and INTEL currently have greater OEM/Integrated market penetration than NVIDIA. So while INTEL is the biggest know anyone who actually can game on one of those integrated decellerators?

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...