Slashdot Mirror


Nvidia Launches New Affordable GPU

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?'"

25 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. Tech Report Review by hattig · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pretty decent review here I read earlier:

    nVidia 6800GS

    1. Re:Tech Report Review by LehiNephi · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are lots of other reviews out there, too. Looks like the 6800GS kicks the X1600 where it hurts. Over and over and over again.

      - [H]ard|OCP
      - Avault
      - Computer Base
      - Driver Heaven
      - Guru3D
      - Hartware
      - HotHardware
      - Noticia3D
      - nV News
      - The Tech Report

      I shamelessly stole this list from Hardocp.com

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
  2. Uninformative: Here's a summary by fuzzy12345 · · Score: 3, Informative
    It's been some time since we last ran our last GPU Price-Performance shootout. Despite nine months having passed, not a whole lot has changed the landscape.

    The real sweet spot for graphics is in the $250 to $300 price range.

    We have no idea what the heck is going on here.

    The big question: How will this fare against ATI's similarly priced X1000 series card, the Radeon X1600 XT? In short, we don't know.

    --

    Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
    1. Re:Uninformative: Here's a summary by ruiner5000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, Extremetech is after all a big tech publishers attempt at a tech enthusiast site. If you are in the $250-$300 range then you should spend $33 extra bucks and go with this evga 7800GT. It is worth the extra chunk of change. Not only will it be much faster than the cards that Extremetech recommends, but it also uses less power than the 6800GT, and therefor puts off less heat. That is a no brainer in my book.

      --
      ignorance is bliss. googlefiberatx.com
    2. Re:Uninformative: Here's a summary by aywwts4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think this shows everything thats wrong with the tech review industry. They Adver-review cards pretty much only for kids to drool over and feel bad about their existing card that works just fine on pretty much every game they play; and 'Enthusiasts" IE, one born every minute.

      Instead of working as a consumer reports type site, where If i want to buy a good graphics card for my ~700-1100 dollar computer (Not my 4 grand alienware) I would be digging through archaic reviews from a few years ago with test results on old drivers.

      Wow, this just in, a 700 dollar card dual SLI card can play games at resolutions larger than my monitor can handle, at colour depths the human eye can't discern, at a framerate so fast the human eye doesnt pick it up, on a game that probably wasn't made to take advantage of the card, and with an actual visual performance increase I can barely notice. But the good news is I smoke em when I run a benchmark utility.

      --
      Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
    3. Re:Uninformative: Here's a summary by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, no kidding. I am *very* used to running games at moderate detail and with all of the AA/AF turned off as I have Jurassic-era equipment by gamer standards (P4-M 2.2 GHz running a AGP 4x Radeon 9000 64MB.) It does not make that big of a difference to me anyway as it looks nice, but in a FPS game, do you just stand there admiring the scenery? No! You run around and shoot the bad guys.

      And I laugh any time I see people doing CPU framerate comparisons at 640x480 or 800x600 with everything dialed down and judge CPU #2 a winner because it got 447 fps and CPU #1 only got 432. You honestly can't see anything over the refresh rate of your monitor (85 Hz top-end, generally 60Hz for an LCD) so you waste most of your huge framerate anyway. Shooter games are playable for me as long as the framerate is about 30-35 fps or so. Movies and TV are shot at 24 fps!! and few complain about flicker in them.

      I think that the entire gaming industry is just set up to take advantage of suckers that will buy $900 sets of SLI graphics cards, $1000 CPUs, and super-expensive high-frequency overclocker RAM. Almost makes me wish I had invested in ATI, nVidia, AMD, or Crucial so I can take $1500 in dividends and buy a very usable computer that will last me four or more years.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
  3. This is insanse by PoderOmega · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We are often asked "Which video card should I buy?" We always answer with "well how much do you want to spend?" The inevitable reply is that everyone wants to run all the latest graphics-heavy games at high resolutions with all the features enabled, but they only want to spend $100 to $150 to do so. Sorry to say, but that's just not going to happen. The real sweet spot for graphics is in the $250 to $300 price range.

    I cannot express how frustrating this is. People, please do not spend more than $150 on video card. This is just insane. I guess we do need people like this to keep the graphics market hot by paying $300 for a card. I just hope game manufactures don't think that their games should require $300 cards.

    1. Re:This is insanse by Buddy_DoQ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What else are young gaming geeks going to do with their money? They live at home in mom and dads basement with 100% disposable income; 300 bucks for a new GPU is nothing. It's a hot-rod culture, rather than mustang parts, it's computer parts.

      --
      -Buddy of DoQ
    2. Re:This is insanse by rovingeyes · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I just hope game manufactures don't think that their games should require $300 cards

      Simple - OEM pressure. I can confirm this because I have a friend who works for Microsoft and I asked him why is that every year we are forced to upgrade. Can't you guys do with what is already available? He told me that they can optimize the systems to run far better on existing hardware but the OEMs don't like that. Dell apparently wants users to upgrade every 2 years or so. Bottom line - they don't care about end user. They know that the end user will spend to use the latest and greatest software.

    3. Re:This is insanse by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  4. The Irony! by Zemplar · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Design goals:
    1. CPUs: High cost, low power
    2. GPUs: Low cost, high power

    Granted this is a rough approximation, but it seems that GPUs are destined to waste all the power [watts] modern CPUs are saving.
  5. Video card naming schemes: CONFUSING by Work+Account · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish video card makers would be more CLEAR when they decide on names for their cards.

    We are one step away from having "Nvidia Model 8912347892389110".

    For lay men like myself who buy a new video card every few years, it is hard knowing what is what in the video card market since the names are very confusing i.e. 6800 GS vs. X800XL vs. 6800 GT.

    Discuss.

    --

    If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
    1. Re:Video card naming schemes: CONFUSING by StaticEngine · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you're confused about what to buy, you should check out this site:

      http://www.gpureview.com/database.php

      Specifically, the "Compare Cards" feature on the left. I just upgraded my ATI 9600XT to a nVidia 6600GT AGP (because I'm not yet ready to drop a grand on an all new PCIe 64-Bit system), and that site helped me decide what was "enough" of an upgrade for how much money I was willing to spend.

  6. Re:Which card for Linux? by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nvidia is really the only way to go for 3D in linux. If you really only need 2D, I've heard good things about the old Matrox cards, but good luck finding one.

    --
    TODO: Something witty here...
  7. $250 by RCVinson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    $250 makes for "a new low-cost, high-power graphics processor"?

  8. Multi Core / Processor by squoozer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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)

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    1. Re:Multi Core / Processor by KitesWorld · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's a Dual-GPU version of the 6600 available from Gigabyte. The problem mostly comes down to power consumption and heat.

      That's more or less why SLI and X-fire are multiple-card solutions as opposed to expandable single-card solutions - it's that or have a single card with a heatsink so heavy it breaks the PCB.

    2. Re:Multi Core / Processor by Jozer99 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um, been done many times before. Not only do you have SLI, which combines two cards, but there are several "SLI on a single card" monsters with two geForce 6600s or 6800s on a single card. The first dual GPU card was way back in the day, I think it was an ATI Rage. Also, Creative makes high end workstation graphics, and they have a non-SLI dual GPU card. Are you talking dual core? Well, it will probably be done soon enough, the problem is that the software support for multiple GPUs is really crappy (SLI is really not that practical for everyday use). Now, at least with PCIe, the hardware restrictions imposed by AGP are gone. I would expect to see something within six months, probably from SiS. It might take a little while longer for nVidia and ATI to come out with a dual core card, although I'm sure it will perform better.

  9. Agreed WTF? by bogie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    $250 is a new breakthrough in affordability?

    I was naively waiting to read about a $100 gpu that performed well enough to play today's games at lcd resolutions.

    When you can build a very fast system with everything sans gpu for $400-$500 spending more than half the system cost on a single component sounds fucking stupid.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  10. Old Trick by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Informative
    Once upon a long time ago I worked for Control Data Corporation (anyone remember them?). CDC had a trick, which wasn't new to them, of re-badging essentially the same system with a new model number and a lower price. An example at the time was their popular CDC 3300 mainframe becoming the CDC 3170. The only difference between the models was that the CDC 3300 had a 1.75uS clock, compared to the CDC 3300's 1.25uS clock. Move one wire (the right wire!) inside and the CDC 3170 became the CDC 3300 in all respects except for the name badge on the equipment bays and console.

    Why do this I wondered? The problem was in government contracts. After you'd paid back the design costs addition computers could be pumped out at a cheaper price while still both making a profit and remaining competitive. The fly in this ointment is that the government, who often bought quantities of the earlier models where cost was not the first concern (when has cost ever been a concern to governments spending tax money?). I was told that the government contracts stipulated that if you ever lower the price on something you've sold them you have to rebate them the entire difference on every system delivered. Of course that would bankrupt any company, so they resorted to this rather transparent subterfuge.

    Perhaps some form of that's what's happening here as well.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  11. Your comment is woefully obsolete by FreeUser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Disclaimer: I make extensive use of both nvidia and ati hardware under GNU/Linux.

    Nvidia is really the only way to go for 3D in linux. If you really only need 2D, I've heard good things about the old Matrox cards, but good luck finding one.

    Not true. The proprietary ATI drivers (currently version 8.18.8) work as well as the nvidia drivers on both my amd64 and x86 boxes. Nvidia works fine (except for incessent flickering at 1920x1200 on one machine), as does ATI (but no flicker on that one machine). ATI works better ati 1920x1200@60Hz, but nvidia draws specular hilights on a celestia-rendered hi-res Earth better that ATI. In short, its a wash, with each manufacturer/driver having strengths and weaknesses the other does not.

    The choice these days is one of personal preference. Your comment is at least a year behind the current state of the art, at least in the GNU/Linux world.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:Your comment is woefully obsolete by oddfox · · Score: 3, Informative

      Too bad you make no mention of the lackluster performance of the ATI drivers for Linux, it seriously sucks compared to the Windows drivers. Sure you get hardware accellerated 3D with the drivers, but it's laughable how they perform.

      I really wanted to keep my 9800 Pro, but this GeForce 6600GT just performs worlds better in 3D under Linux, and it performs just about equally in Windows. Plus the drivers are a bit of a PITA under Linux, imho, but that's just me.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
  12. Re:No AGP! by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The AC is correct. The fastest, last AGP card from ATI was the X850 XT PE. If you want anything faster or new, it's only offered in PCI-E. To be frank, this pisses me off. There is a whole market with people running fast CPUs and DDR 3200 memory that do NOT want to swap out their motherboard. I cannot imagine why in the hell the current crop of video chipset cannot handle the bandwidth provided by AGP 8x. I mean, clearly there is a market for AGP cards.

    I'm sorry, but I will not swap out my CPU and motherboard just so I can install faster cards only available in PCI-E.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  13. Another BS article about yuppies with too much $$$ by tomstdenis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I bought a 6600 PCI-E for 179$. Why did I buy a 6600 PCI-E for 179$?

    It was the cheapest "non-crap" PCI-E from nvidia I could find. And you know what? It plays Far Cry, Thief3, Battlefield2 and the others JUST fine.

    This bullshit article about "needing a 6800GT to enjoy the games" is just that. Bullshit. Sure the game may look shinier at 1600x1200 with 200fps and a billion texels/sec or whatever ... But if that's what it takes to make the game "fun" we're obviously not playing the same games.

    Point is this article is all about selling the latest bullshit cards you don't need. A 6600 will do you just fine if you're an average gamer [e.g. you have REAL work to do the rest of the day], it can play games at 1024 and 1280 reasonable well [very well at the former].

    If you're on a budget and you think you need to spend 250$ USD [keep in mind 179$ I'm talking about is Canadian not USD] to enjoy games ... you need a few moments of education :-)

    This is just a press release disguised on a 30 page article [chalk full of ads no less] to sell the latest and greatest...

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  14. Affordable? It's just $249 vs $266. by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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 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.