Slashdot Mirror
NVIDIA Releases new Budget GPUs
Dennis Law writes "I was just checking out the latest GPU releases from NVIDIA. Non-gamers will be delighted to hear that NVIDIA also released a budget-edition of their new 7300 series, namely the 7300 LE. 'Targeted at the X1300 LE, this card will be priced lower than the GeForce 7300 GT at a price range of $49 to $69.' Now that's cheap enough for me to afford."
Now that's cheap enough for me to afford.
It might be cheap enough for you, but it certainly isn't free enough for me.
I use NetBSD and I doubt they'll be porting the proprietary drivers anytime soon.
For anything other than vanilla workstations getting a cheap video card usually costs more in the long run than a mid-range card because you have to replace it sooner. This card looks like it has a little bit of power to it. Will it still be able to run most 3D games and apps in three years or will it, like most of these cheapies, have to be replaced yearly? With desktops and apps going 3D more and more it's no longer an issue only for gamers I think.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD Nvidia, please release a AGP version of your cards. Seriously. There's no way I intend to replace a perfectly good motherboard, CPU, memory, etc just to use a PCI-Express card. I would imagine there are a ton of people in the same boat.
Jeez, VL-Bus got better support after PCI than AGP is after PCI-Express.
Since majority of people do Windows, I think the question is moot since NO card has DX10 atm... so if you (or anyone) is going to advocate a 3+yr card - Nothing on the market has it atm. a $600 FX 7900 or a X1900 will be 'dated' in 6 months anyways.
So why not buy a $50 card now and then buy the lowest DX10 card when it comes to market? That would be the smartest penny pincher plan in my book. Since I assume Aero runs better with atleast some kind of DX10.
That is assuming you go for Vista and aren't one of the vocal %1 of the total population here who refuse to do anything Micro$oft for they are Da Debil! Otherwise who would ever need more than 64 megs on a GeForce 4 MX440.
Why do OEMs insist on using integated Intel graphics cards when stuff like this is available?
Because, believe it or not, most people do not use their PCs for high-end gaming. They may occasionally try to run some hot new resource-sucking game without a clue about the hardware needed to get a good framerate, but for the most part, a Flash app inside their browser counts as the most graphically-intensive app they run.
Now, on the opposite side of that, you have people who will blow $400 on a video card to pointlessly get from 200 to 206fps. Those people will, as their first action on getting a new PC, rip a low-end card out and toss it in the trash.
So who, exactly, would a low-to-mid range video card benefit? Yes, many Slashdotters might understand why you would want something like this, but Mom n' Pop would rather save $50 and use the integrated video, and Little Billy would rather put the $50 toward a $400 card.