Affordable DX10 - GeForce 8600 GTS and 8600 GT

mikemuch writes "While ATI still hasn't released a DX-10-capable graphics card, Nvidia today already released its affordable SKUs, in descending price and performance order the GeForce 8600 GTS and GeForce 8600 GT, and 8500 GT. The GTS costs $200-230, the GT from $150-170, and the 8500 reaching down to the $90 range. The architecture for the new GPUs is the same as for the 8800 line, but with lower clocks and fewer stream processors."

ATi ain't far behind

[Anonymous Coward]

While ATI still hasn't released a DX-10-capable graphics card...

Don't worry - ATi will be announcing (if not launching) their new R600 range next week. I wouldn't buy anything until we see how that goes.

obligatory print version

[Laebshade]

Obligatory print version [extremetech.com]. No pictures, but who needs those?

That said, while I'm not sure how these cards will perform, I have been using their big brother for a while. I've had a Leadtek 8800GTS (640mb) for a few months now, and it runs great. It would probably run better if I was using WinXP instead of Vista, but I'm happy with it.

Re:Linux Drivers?

[Wesley Felter]

They also support OpenGL and Linux (using proprietary drivers).

Another review at anandtech

[bad_fx]

There's another look at these cards at anandtech, here: http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2970 [anandtech.com]

I usually find their reviews to be the best around. Always very detailed, and from what I've seen always right on the money. (They seem impressed, but their bottom line seems to be that, for now, you're better of sticking with a 7600GT, 7900GS or X1950XT if you already have one.)

They support OpenGL just fine

[Sycraft-fu]

nVidia would be fools not to as many games need GL and gaming is probably their biggest market. What they mean by "DirectX 10" is feature set basically. OpenGL doesn't really keep up to date with cards very well so features are usually expressed in terms of DX versions. For example DX 7 means you have at least fixed function T&L, DX 8 means semi-programmable shaders, DX 9 fully programmable and things like that. DX 10 specifies a bunch of new stuff, the Wikipedia entry on it is pretty good if you are interested.

As a practical matter it isn't real useful for end users at this point as nothing really supports it. However it may be of interest to programmers since DX 10 cards take shader programmability to a whole new level. It specifies a unified shader interface, and nVidia has chosen to unify the shader hardware as well (ATi says they have done the same). Thus effectively a DX10 card can be looked at as a stream processor, with a whole lot of units. Various things, like folding, are likely to be able to be designed to run in part on the GPU for massive speed gains. nVidia has a whole deal for helping that called CUDA.

But yes, GL support is there, I can confirm it. I have an 8800 and I play GL games all the time. They work great.

Re:ATi ain't far behind

[darien]

But Nvidia's drivers don't work, at least not on Vista. Google confirms it [google.co.uk].

Re:Yay! DX10!

[ichigo 2.0]

Aero is based on DX9. Any DX9-capable card is able to run it adequately.

Re:Who cares?

[GuyverDH]

And CryEngine already supports DX9.

http://www.crytek.com/technology/index.php?sx=eng2 [crytek.com]

Re:too many models and lines

[Sinbios]

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html [tomshardware.com]

I'm sure those will appear on there eventually.

More opinions!

[Vigile]

Here are some links to other interesting reviews of these products:

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?type=expert&aid=3 92 [pcper.com] tested under Vista 64-bit and shows the 8600 GTS behind the aging ATI X1950 Pro
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM yNCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA== [hardocp.com] tested under XP and shows better performance on the 8600 GTS
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=8409 [hexus.net] tested under XP but not a lot of newer games

It goes basically like this

[Sycraft-fu]

The first number is the major generation of hardware. So these are the 8000 series cards, the 8th generation of GeForce hardware. All other things being equal, a new generation card of a similar number performs better than an older one. So a 7600GT should outperform a 6600GT and an 8600GT should outperform a 7600GT. However the primary reason to look at new major version numbers is new features. In this case, 8 series cards support DirectX 10, 7 series are DirectX 9.0c.

The second number is the minor version and generally increasing numbers indicate increasing speed. Usually, they indicate the amount of processing hardware so an 8800 has more pixel pipelines and shaders and such than an 8600. Then there's the letters. GTX > GTS > GT, not sure how it goes after that. Again, speed related.

What it really comes down to though is you need to look at benchmarks. There's no one magic metric for cards, they'll be better at some things worse at others. You need to see how it performs on the stuff you are doing to make the determination.

Re:too many models and lines

[TypoNAM]

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php [gpureview.com] is your friend. Allows you to select any ATI and nVidia card known and compare them side by side. Somebody back about four years ago here on slashdot pointed me in the right direction to that site and have been using it since. :)

Re:AGP Version...

[Zantetsuken]

Probably not - IMHO AGP users were lucky to get 79xx versions in AGP, which may be the last new model agp card made...

Re:DX10? What?

[drinkypoo]

ATI's OpenGL support has apparently always sucked, and you don't create a game that will suck for half the market if there's an easy alternative. (DirectX.) (Disclaimer: I have no first-hand experience with ATI cards. I've stuck with nVidia since Voodoo died.)

I don't think you really understand. ATI's everything support has always sucked. It's not just OpenGL. ATI can't write a stable driver for any amount of money. But then, they don't have to, because people keep buying their crap.

The hardware seems to actually be quite good. But it's no use if you can't use it.

My next-to-last ATI was a Rage card. For each type of Rage, there are actually numerous parts. It always caused me problems. So then I bought lots of nVidia stuff, but eventually I decided to try ATI again. Various people told me that they had fixed driver problems and such. So I bought a 9600XT. Downloaded the latest drivers including catalyst control center, rebooted, and bluescreened. Rebooted in safe mode - no bluescreen. Reboot? Bluescreen. Reboot in safe mode, remove catalyst control center but not the driver, and reboot. No bluescreen! Unfortunately you couldn't change all settings and whatnot without CCC. I've since sold that system, and will be avoiding ATI like the plague it is once more.

Re:Linux Drivers?

[kazade84]

Just some enlightening information: D3D and OpenGL are APIs that allow programmers to use the features that a graphics card is capable of. If a graphics card is capable of a new feature it is made available by extending the APIs of OpenGL and D3D. OpenGL does keep up to date with these new features via extensions. Whereas Direct3D have regular (annual?) full releases. D3D10 features such as geometry shaders ARE available in OpenGL via extensions. These extensions are normally first created by a member of the Architecture Review Board (e.g nVidia) and are given a name containing the creator (e.g. GL_NV_texture_rectangle, NV = nVidia) then when these extensions become more standardized (used by a few members of the ARB) they are named with EXT for extension, and finally when accepted by the Architecture Review Board they are named with ARB. At this stage they are official extensions, then normally with the next release they are moved into the core of OpenGL. This is where people get confused and say "OpenGL is so far behind D3D", what they don't realize is that OpenGL has the extensions mechanism. You tend to find people use the D3D version as a label for a cards feature-set for 2 reasons: 1. There normally isn't an official OpenGL version with new features till a while after the release (extensions don't contribute to a version number) 2. Windows users wouldn't even know what OpenGL is, whereas M$ use DX versions as a selling point 3. Most game developers (unfortunately for us non-windows users) use DX and label their games with it Anyway back to the point in hand, OpenGL is used on far more platforms than D3D and so graphics manufacturers will not stop supporting it doing so would stop all of these platforms (including linux and OSX) using new 3D features. Disclaimer - All of the above is they way I believe that OpenGL/D3D releases work, I don't know what has changed since OpenGL was taken over by the Khronos group or whatever. If I'm wrong about anything correct me!

No news of DX10 on XP?

[Sparr0]

Everyone keeps calling these "DX10" cards, despite that being a misnomer. They are SM4 cards, and DX10 happens to be the first version of DX to support SM4. OpenGL also supports the new shaders (and has for longer). When are we going to start hearing about developers switching to OGL to get geometry shaders (which produce some sick effects) in WinXP, still the most popular gaming OS?

Re:So how much did NVidia pay them for this?

[Dread Pirate Skippy]

Yes, built by Sapphire. Info here. [sapphiretech.com]

Re:too many models and lines

[djtachyon]

Tom's Hardware has a great chart system: http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html [tomshardware.com]

Re:DX10? What?

[TheNetAvenger]

Why are we still designing GPUs for Windows? It's like the Slashdot crowd hates Microsoft for everything but still clings to them for their computer games. Screw DX10, ask for Open GL 3.0 already!


Ok, go look up the technologies, you really need to educate yourself on what, why and when.

The first thing is that OpenGL doesn't support features DX10 does.

The second thing is concepts from the architecture of these cards are not completely exclusive to DX10 or Windows, many of the features can be modified to work well in native and OpenGL environments. (Although as we move to multi-core GPUs, the OS will need to have a basic understanding of GPU scheduling, and right now Vista is the only OS that does this.)

The third thing is the design of this generation of cards was done by Microsoft. Go look at the XBox360 and you will see the same technology in the MS/ATI developed GPU. So whether you hate MS or not, this progression of technology is very much pushed and even partially funded by them.

Also if you look back at the original XBox and the money NVidia got in the development of the GPU with MS, a lot of that technology set the stage for the last generation of GPUs. For example the XBox's GPU was feature comparable to the Geforce3 Ti, and that was all the way back in 1999/2000. NVidia and MS ended up fighting over production costs, but what most people don't realize is that NVidia got a lot of Money from MS up front to develop the technologies that they later put into their Geforce3 Ti, and Geforce 4 line of video cards, which helped them take and hold the market while ATI flopped like a fish.

So ya, MS technologies are pushing what goes into the Video cards, but these are also the 'newest' technologies for GPUs, not just what MS wants.

You will also start to see dual/multi core GPUs and other technologies that are a part of the MS DX10 technologies pushing ATI/NVidia hardware.

DX10 right now is just the only technology that effectively is designed for and uses these new GPU concepts effectively. From native support for multi-core GPUs to GPU scheduling (pre-emptive multitasking video) to even the full set of non-Video APIs that allow the GPUs to handle physics, which is a part of DX10 and something ATI will be using to showcase their new line of GPUs.

Re:too many models and lines

[Danny Rathjens]

Tom's hardware has the same feature. In addition to the various benchmarks, they also have a price/performance ratio which is pretty interesting:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html [tomshardware.com]

Re:Pot & Kettle

[will_die]

new non-beta drivers out today, so far they have fixed the problems I was having. They are on the nvidia site.

Re:Cards for non-gamers

[Chandon Seldon]

In particular, it wouldn't take much to produce home-theater/video versions of cards: basically take a medium-range card with hardware MPEG-2/4 decompression, scaling, and deinterlace, and put some standard video outputs on it -- say HDMI, Component, and VGA (that way you could get to DVI easily using an HDMI adapter, and you can get to S-Video or Composite by combining the component signals).

That stuff all largely exists. It's just that gamer gear gets the marketing hype.

Re:DX10? What?

[aztracker1]

I had similar issues, but the conflict was the ATI driver vs. The motherboard's drivers.. it was a SFF PC, so out went the ATI, my son got a nice ATI 9600Pro, and I haven't bought any ATI based video cards since.. oops, I did get one for my G4, but ATI was the only one available, and in stock... Just the same, I try to avoid them...

Re:So how much did NVidia pay them for this?

[MikShapi]

I also got the impression that sane people compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges.

If you have 400$ and give them to ATI, you get a 1950XTX.
If you have 400$ and give them to nVIDIA you get an 8800, possibly the lower-RAM (320MB) version.

You're much better off with the 8800, it tears the ATI card a new one.

Now if you have 200$ to spend, that's a whole different ballpark there.
Giving them to nVidia will net you something that is, in most benchmarks, ALMOST on-par with the 400$ ATI card. *AND* is DX10, for whenever DX10 games come along, months, maybe a year from now.
I won't even mention ATI's 200$ card.

This is all, however, very temporary. We're comparing an 8th-gen (geforce-count) nVidia card to a 7th-get ATI one. ATI has an 8th-get card that's going to be announced very-very-soon(tm). THEN we'll perhaps be able to tell which of them better deserves our coin.

On a sidenote, low-end cards are typically announced last. I suspect the 8500 will give performance on-par with 7th-gen midrange cards (read: Still Smokin fast in most available games by most people's standards, even if they have to tone down an eyecandy knob or two). And it's sitting smack at the bottom of the pile, at 90$.

If, say, ATI releases their 600$ 8800-equivalent bunker-buster next week, and takes another 4 months to chug out it's low-end, nVidia is going to be doing a milk-run (as it's been doing since day 1 of the 8X00 card), and again you're best off getting an 8500 for a while.

You can always stick it back out on ebay later, lose (or gain) a whopping 15$ in the deal, and buy ATI's thing if the R600 humanely-priced lines turn out to be so much better. I've just sold off my 8800 (bought it just to complete Gothic III, have no intention on letting it depreciate in price while it's in my computer), and am seriously thinking of getting me one of those 90$ 8500GT's.

My 2 cents.