NVIDIA 9500 GT: Mainstream Graphics Update
by Derek Wilson on September 5, 2008 10:15 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
This is not an exciting launch. The 9500 GT doesn't offer much more performance than the 8600 GT it replaces. The price is okay at between $70 and $80, but the 8600 GT can be had for the same cost as well. While this is a different class of hardware than integrated graphics, these are still just cards for people who aren't invested in playing today's games.
We have gotten used to not expecting much from sub $100 parts. Graphics card companies need to make money, and we can't expect them to give away hardware will killer features and performance. But there are multiple issues with the current state of low end graphics.
Setting the bar too low makes it so that game developers have to put time and energy into targeting crappy hardware. Putting time into making the game work takes away from the time and energy they could available for making the game better. This is a much more difficult than developing for consoles, as their target is relatively high at launch and doesn't change for a good 4 or 5 years. With the current worries over piracy on the PC, we don't need any more difficulty thrown at developers. Giving consumers a reasonable baseline performance for less than $100 is essential to keep game developers interested in and writing for the PC.
Additionally, people who have cheap hardware don't know what they are missing with higher performance parts, but they have no way to experience something that looks good enough to show them why they should care. What we want to see are low end parts that can run all the latest and greatest features that the high end cards can run at reasonable frame rates at very low resolutions. I don't care if it's 640x480 at 30 frames per second, we need hardware that can push through very complex shaders and textures for the good of the PC gaming industry.
It is possible that Larrabee could be a disruptive technology in this market. If Intel is able to deliver a top to bottom launch on day one with volume on all parts, the way graphics hardware is addressed could see a fundamental shift. We might just see the competition realize that they need to change their ways and address the all important low end space with new generations as quickly as possible.
If NVIDIA and AMD can't adjust their strategy for the good of the industry, they might reassess things for the good of their bottom line once a true third competitor comes along in the graphics space. While we still don't know how Larrabee will perform, or even how Intel will approach real desktop graphics, we have a lot of hope that even if this x86 based graphics hardware falls on its face that the competition will not place its hope on Intel's failure.
NVIDIA and AMD need to have a healthy fear and respect for Intel, if only due to the size of their research, development, fabrication, and marketing budgets. The sheer volume of money Intel can pour into this project and not bat an eye is huge. We hope, for their sakes and ours, that NVIDIA and AMD realize this fact.
Who knows, maybe NVIDIA and AMD are already betting on Intel pushing forward with a top to bottom launch of competitive hardware. Maybe they are hard at work on a strategy to improve the quality of the low end hardware they offer and to bring out their parts for a given generation all at once.
And maybe next year we'll see Duke Nukem Forever.
It's nice to dream sometimes ...
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
37 Comments
View All Comments
ThermoMonkey - Wednesday, October 8, 2008 - link
Don't you think this card is better Suited for HTPC???I mean it has an SPDIF input to pass audio over HDMI and that wasn't even mentioned! Wouldn't that provide 8-channel SPDIF (dependent of the sound card)
Sure its a nice budget card that can game a bit. But I would never use this card for gaming when I can still buy a 8800GTS 512 G92 for $150 that games much better.
Maybe I missed something in the article, anyone have any comments?
BernardP - Monday, September 8, 2008 - link
Simply because it is the most powerful card that fits in my case. It's true that price/performance is much better wih ATI HD3850 and NVidia 9600GT, but these cards are too long to fit in a smallish ATX case with all three hard-disk slots filled-up. As a casual gamer, I have to choose between getting a short video card or taking one of the HD's out...I get the shorter card.nubie - Monday, September 8, 2008 - link
That is one choice, if all or some of your drives are 250Gb you can upgrade to 500GB for ~$75 and then choose a better card.An argument could also be made for getting a bigger case (if you need 3 drives now you are maxed for space already) or using a 5.25" to 3.5" adapter for your other drive.
I can see your point, but if you are going to get a video card at all you might as well solve your case problem and then get a video card that delivers a good value for the price you pay.
Your case sounds poorly designed, for example, this PC http://sportcompactpc.com/web/">http://sportcompactpc.com/web/ http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/gt3/">http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/gt3/ and an external dual HDD enclosure* can handle a Dual Slot 8800GTS (any card up to 235MM, it will supply 150watts for the video card) and 3-4 HDDs.
I would bet that setup takes up less volume than your current case (it can also hold a second hard drive or a PCI card)
If you don't want to change cases you can choose to pay more money for an inferior card based on your situation, or simply buy a card that will fit your case and delivers the same performance for less money.
*(Like a WD 1TB book for example, or one using Firewire or SATA/eSATA)
BernardP - Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - link
Thanks for these thoughts, At this point, I am not willing to spend much on a two and a half year old machine. As soon as the new ATI HD46xx is out, prices should fall on the 9500GT. I want to go with NVidia as I currently have NVidia integrated graphics and NVidia drivers offers better scaling options at non-native resolutions, a must for me.Kougar - Monday, September 8, 2008 - link
Hi guys.I know you get plenty of these, but even if not all the errors can be caught out the gate, certainly they should've been fixed three days after release. I'd use the quote option but it won't function on this PC with either browser, sorry. Such as:
"People who don't already know what is and is not possible aren't going to buy into the hype."
Following the context of the paragraph, they're one to many negatives in here. Ya just said the reverse of what you intended.
"Alternate" was meant to be "alternately" on page 3.
And worst of all, your specifications chart on page three is labeled "9600GT", when clearly it should have been labeled 9500GT. ;)
This is not Dailytech, and I know y'all both love to dictate through voice recognition software, but that just makes the issue of Editing the articles afterwards all the more important. I didn't have time to read past page 3 so there are likely more errors to be found...
Cheers
Megaknight - Monday, September 8, 2008 - link
I really hope AMD does a better job than Nvidia with the 46xx series. 9500GT has almost the same performance as 7600GT, 2 generations older!toyota - Monday, September 8, 2008 - link
I hate to tell you but even though the 9500gt is wimpy, its still about twice as fast as 7600gt in modern games.psybience - Sunday, September 7, 2008 - link
There is a mistake on this article on page 3. The 9600 GT actually has:64 stream processors
1625 mhz shader clock
16 ROPs
650 mhz core clock
256bit memory bus width
1800 mhz memory clock
toyota - Monday, September 8, 2008 - link
well it is anandtech and they are not known for their proof reading...JarredWalton - Monday, September 8, 2008 - link
While you are correct on the 9600 GT, this article is about the 9500 GT. That's part of the *huge* problem with NVIDIA right now. The G9x parts never should have been called 8000 series GPUs, but at launch the 8800 GT 256/512 didn't get the 9000 name because they weren't universally better than the 8800 GTX/Ultra. Now we have 8600 and 8800 parts renamed to the 9000 series just to make them seem like they aren't two generations old.9800 GT == 8800 GT 512
9600 GSO = 8800 GS (a limited release 8800 GT with 96 SPs and 12 ROPs)
9500 GT = 8600 GT Overclocked
If you look at the mobile world, things become even worse. http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=335...">Here's a quick overview. 8700M = 9600M, 8600M = 9500M, 9800M = 8800M ... just change a few letters on the end.
Honestly, I think NVIDIA has somehow come to the conclusion that obfuscation and confusion in their part naming is a good thing. Maybe not good for the consumer, but apparently it helps their partners and their bottom line. If not, why do they keep doing it? ATI at least seems to have calmed down on renaming and overlapping names. Not that performance is always clear when we're comparing stuff like 2600, 2900, 3600, 3800, and 4800 parts.
The real failure, however, is what Derek indicates in this article: the huge gap between the entry-level $75 parts and the $100~$150 parts is inexcusable. Last-gen parts that sell for $100 are still twice as fast as "new" parts selling for $75. These $75 parts are really only worth $50 if you look at the performance offered.