NVIDIA 9500 GT: Mainstream Graphics Update
by Derek Wilson on September 5, 2008 10:15 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Card
This card, being built on a smaller process than it's predecessor, is capable of more performance in the same form factor. Alternate, NVIDIA could make it a little cooler and little quieter and still hit the same or slightly better performance than the part they are replacing. This seems to be the option they have selected for the 9500 GT.
But there is a fundamental issue with the timing of NVIDIA's low end releases. We see high end parts first, mid-range parts next, and low end parts last for any given GPU generation. While we do enjoy the fact that AMD has decided to target the mid-range first and then expand up and down in performance later, their history shows a trend of taking too long to bump up the performance of their lowest common denominator. AMD is promising some change in this area very soon, but we will have to wait until we finish our tests and are able to talk about that to ... well ... talk about that :-)
There are reasons that this makes business sense. For example, parts from higher price brackets, once replaced by faster hardware can be sold at lower price points before new hardware is available. This wouldn't be as effective with a top to bottom launch of new hardware (or if either company started with the low end). But that doesn't change the fact that the less the low end lags current technology, the faster new techniques can be used by game developers.
In any case, what we have today with our new G96 based low end hardware doesn't rock the boat in any major ways. Yes it is faster than the previous part at this price (8500 GT), and yes it competes with previous generation mid-range hardware (8600 GT). But that just doesn't seem like much after the launch of GT200. Here's how it stacks up in terms of processing power:
| GeForce 8500 GT | GeForce 8600 GT | GeForce 9500 GT | |
| IC Codename | G86 | G84 | G96 |
| Fab Process | 80nm | 80nm | 65nm |
| Shader Pipes | 16 | 32 | 32 |
| Shader Clock | 900MHz | 1190MHz | 1400MHz |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| Core Clock | 450MHz | 540MHz | 550MHz |
| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 128 bit | 128 bit |
| Memory Data Rate | 800MHz | 1400MHz | 1600MHz |
We can see that this is just another evolutionary low end part. Yes, volume is large, but apparently offering something that really improves value is out of the question.
The fact is that, traditionally, you get more (if not the most) for your money at the $200-$300 price point. Above this we see diminishing returns on performance per dollar, and below this you really just don't get what you pay for (even though you aren't spending much in some cases).
This needs to change. And it needs to change without diminishing what we get at the midrange. We aren't asking for higher return on your investment at lower prices, but we would love it if the value curve would flatten out a bit. Diminishing returns at the high end are fine (people will pay a premium for the top of the line) but it is just doubly insulting to sell us an under performing part and charge us way too much for the performance we do get.
We don't see any sign of change today, and we probably won't see any sort of major shift next time around either. But we will keep making noise when we have the opportunity. Maybe AMD's next mainstream launch will be a bit more interesting.
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.