Read more.Quote:
Premature listing gives full details on OEM graphics-card.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Premature listing gives full details on OEM graphics-card.
Nice ninja edit on the article title but you missed a spot guys *points at title of thread*
Yeah, I have no idea how to change the thread titles :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
Can't believe I screwed that one up. What I get for writing a story before the coffee has had a chance to work :Oops:
Decent oomph for the entry level card, I hope this is NVidia's direction as it might be with the mobile 415 - providing a good step up over integrated rather than something that's not much better (i.e. 310).
it has to compete with the rather competant sandybridge IGP now so they need to start making the low end cards really worth it!
I don't know if they do. Take a look at the chached site and see the line "the ultimate performance upgrade".Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
There is nothing ultimate about this card, but you're selling it (largely) to people who aren't informed consumers in the graphics market. If you tell someone that for a relatively small fee they can have the ultimate graphics upgrade capable of 3D surround gaming and amazing PhysX enhanced effects, they might go for it.
I think good marketing rather than good performance will sell cards like this, even in the face of SB CPUs.
Well thats always the case with Nvidia, marketting is their number one asset! You have to remember however, Intel will more than likely have a marketing ploy of their own which will make a point of the SB graphical performance.
For 90% odd of the market IGP is all they need, but NVidia will never admit that... Intel's recent efforts are fine for anyone who isn't a gamer (business sales make that half the market straight away).Quote:
Originally Posted by BullDogg
Aside from dual-DVI and multiple outputs etc (single VGA on Vostro, why Dell why - crafty bastards trying to make you pay £70 for a 4350 LOLOL) very few in my office would notice the difference between Intel IGP and a GTX480 for their work use.
I completely agree with you. But the same people who know that this card is barely an upgrade from a good IGP know that most people don't need more than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpotnoodle
Unfortunately, a lot of consumers just aren't that informed. Offices are slightly different, since they tend to have a well informed buyer (aka "nerd") who can tell them what they do and don't need. A lot of the time, home buyers don't have that luxury.
Just because its a 50W power draw makes it a good option? Lets just take some very rough idea of the speed, its got 1/10th the shader power of a 480gtx, its rival card, in terms of power, is a 5570, which uses 45W max. The 5570 is a 400 shader card, or 1/4 of a 5870, a 200 shader part, at 1/8th of a 5870 might be about on par with a 420gt in terms of performance, but that would be down towards 30W. What AMD really need is something between their 80 shader and 400 shader parts, because thats a BIG gap.
Its very likely though, with Sandybridge basically matching a 5430 now, that they will move the low end up to around 160shaders(maybe a little less or more depending on how many shaders a 6000 series has per cluster.
The other problem is a 48 shader part is going to be pretty huge compared to AMD's 80 shader parts, and the 400shader parts might not cost much more than it, while offering probably 2.5-3x the performance.
For a card thats going to be completely crap for gaming, yet will cost more and use a HECK of a lot more power than AMD's non gaming low end cards which come in at 15-20W. If you want a card that can do some gaming, you can still save power, spend not much extra and get yourself a card way faster. The 420GT is pretty terrible for any application.
The reason? THe GF104, it changed the shader clusters from relatively small, to 48 shaders per cluster, so Nvidia can't make a low end part with less than 48 shaders, and can't make a sub 20W part either. Which is why the lowest Mobile part recently announced was 48shaders, the GT420M mobile part strangely has 96 shaders and it looks like Nvidia are maintaining the GT310/315 to have a low power and low shader count part available because they literally can't make anything small enough with their new architecture.
They've screwed up the low power and low end market for themselves this time around with an architecture thats too big, it hurt them at the top end and the bottom end. The question is, was it planned or was it overlooked in the rush to get out the GF104, if the later, someones getting fired.