NVIDIA 9500 GT: Mainstream Graphics Update
by Derek Wilson on September 5, 2008 10:15 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Mainstream Graphics Today
Much of the time integrated graphics solutions are enough for business or casual computing needs, but when they are not there needs to be an affordable next step up in the current generation of hardware. Low end cards are generally not designed with gaming in mind, but that doesn't mean that they are not important to gaming.
Many are interested in this low level of add-in graphics card. The volumes on these parts are much higher than at other price points. Some people don't need to worry about 3D and others as non-gamers and non-tech-savvy are not interested in looking past marketing (and also desire a low price). They either don't know or don't care about the kinds of applications that will have a tough time performing well on their systems.
The reason this impacts PC gaming and game development is because publishers are not going to limit the potential sales of their games to consumers who are already gamers and have at least mid-range graphics cards. In order to attract the money that studios need to develop games on the scale that is the current trend, the target market needs to include a much greater slice of PC owners. It needs to reach down to at least the 9500 GT, if not integrated graphics.
We've said this just about every time we've published an article on lower end hardware: the low end is an anchor tied to the neck of game developers. Well, that's not entirely fair, as the previous generation acts the same way as not everyone with a graphics card upgrades every 18 months. But that just means the low end of the previous generation is the real problem.
There are a lot of amazing things possible with the latest and greatest hardware. But not many developers have the time and energy to really focus on getting the most out of today's $400+ graphics solutions. The bulk of their time needs to be put in to making the game playable on the vast majority of hardware that is currently out there. Sure, sliders and settings exist that do make prettier pictures with more powerful computers, but if the bottom line were more powerful it would impact the performance and quality at every level.
The worst offenders are certainly still integrated solutions. These parts are notoriously slow. Even the faster offerings from AMD and NVIDIA, while the are superior to Intel's dismal graphics components, don't do us any favors. But the lowest end add-in cards, while offering quite a boost over integrated graphics in terms of performance, are still under performers in terms in terms of gaming.
Yes, we know that hardware guys can just give performance away for free. But while casual computer users who have something on this level of hardware will be less frustrated than integrated graphics users, they will still not likely be inspired by anything that is possible on their hardware either.
The value of getting real gaming experiences on mid-range to high end hardware with high production value games cannot be understated. Ever since the days of the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST, the general public has been shown ridiculous things that don't reflect game play. Even today there is an over abundance of time spent showing off cut scenes and non-interactive parts of games that aren't actual game play. People who don't already know what is and is not possible aren't going to buy into the hype.
The best thing that could happen for gaming is for lower end hardware to offer more power so that anyone who had an add-in graphics card could download any demo out there and experience a real taste of what is really possible rather than what they currently get.
Don't get us wrong here -- the industry has seen good steps up in performance on the low end and game developers fitting a good range of features into their titles that are at least playable on low end parts. We just want more. Intel integrated seems to be a lost cause at this point, and even NVIDIA and AMD need to step up their integrated segment as well. The low end parts are where the real war is fought and the future of PC gaming, in large part, is defined by the capabilities of this segment.
Ever wonder why consoles come out of the gate with better looking, better performing games than PCs seem capable of offering? It is because game programmers know exactly the hardware they have to work with and develop exclusively for that. Over the next 5 years, eventually the lowest end part that PC game developers are targeting meets or exceeds the performance of the hardware in consoles and for a short time PC game quality leads the curve (until the next next generation consoles come out with current generation mid-range parts and quality that blows the PC away once again).
If the graphics hardware industry is serious about PC gaming (and we firmly believe they need to be going forward), for the next round of console launches all the players in the graphics market need to be willing to come out with a low end part that meets (or comes really close to) the performance and capabilities of what ever graphics hardware is within the consoles.
Yes, there will still be a significant amount of older hardware in systems that developers will target for a time. But time the consoles spend on top will be significantly reduced, and if people could get the quality of a console on the computer they already own for about $75 rather than the three to four hundred dollar and higher prices of next gen consoles, imagine how many people would opt to upgrade their PC than to run out and buy a new console.
Leveling the playing field in terms of production value is one thing. Time and energy still need to be spent on quality and gameplay. Imagine how much more time can be spent on that if shoe horning graphical effects onto low quality hardware wasn't necessary and developers could spend more time making their game competitive by making it good rather than by making it look as good as possible on the crappy hardware they need to target.
Anyway, things aren't always the way they should be. We can dream quite a bit, but reality probably won't shift because we believe it to be in the best interest of the industry. We'll leave this topic and move on to the hardware that stands to limit the innovation of game developers for the next couple years.
The NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT goes up against the previous range of NVIDIA hardware from the 8500 GT to the 8600 GTS. As for competitors from AMD, we are looking at the Radeon HD 2400 series. Though we have yet to see AMD's refresh part yet, we will certainly be waiting and hoping to get more out of it than what we are expecting with the 9500 GT.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
37 Comments
View All Comments
strikeback03 - Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - link
Is it a failure from the GPU maker side though? Take the 3850. It launched as a ~$170 part, and sold well there. They have probably earned back their development costs, so any profit over the manufacturing cost is gravy now. So if they can convince the buyers to go for the $100 last-gen part instead of the $75 current-gen, they make more money and can spend less in development on the low end. Not great for the consumer, but good for their bottom line.What I want to know is how some of these cheaper cards perform outputting video to an HDTV or something. I built a computer for my brother-in-law a few months ago. He had no need for extensive 3D capability, but wanted to be able to run stuff on the TV from the computer. I ended up putting a 9600GT in the system, but couldn't really find any info on these cards in non-gaming scenarios.
toyota - Monday, September 8, 2008 - link
well Jarred the 9500gt is a completely different core than the 8600gt but yeah its pretty much the same specs. Nvidia loves to have those big numbers. look at most of their very low end parts because they are recycled for several generations.kevinkreiser - Saturday, September 6, 2008 - link
cards like these are great for htpc owners who need a little bit of graphics performance but not the huge heat and power requirements of a bigger card. i wonder if these new cards play well with the newest htpc motherboards. i just got the asus p5q-em and dropped in an 8800gt to see what would happen. after trying out a billion graphics driver versions i found out the that newest nvidia drivers don't work with that configuration. i had to settle for the 169.02 version drivers. lets hope nvidia debugs the drivers for the htpc crowd by testing on typical htpc mobos like the asus p5q-em.djfourmoney - Sunday, September 7, 2008 - link
Yeah but you can be HTPC use out of the upcoming 9400GT or HD4450 which will be out before Thanksgiving...As was mentioned before, now that the online media has gotten around to testing this card, its too late! The HD4670 will be this coming Wed and I plan to pick up maybe one or two just for giggles and offer to send one out to a web site if they haven't gotten their boards yet. Or I might upgrade to a Phenom, 790GX and two HD4670's
Somebody already Crossfired some engineering samples that Diamond sent him as reward for a raffle he won. Check out Overclock.net and search "HD4670"
http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/ati-hd-rade...">http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/...0-perfor...
The HD4670 beats it by at least 40% its not even close. If AnandTech was looking for a card that could be a game changer for the PC gaming market this could be the start. PC programers should not require somebody to spend $200 on a card just to get good performance. Crysis is the perfect example. Experienced Console programers like Codemasters has done much better with GRID. It will run on Midrange hardware as was proven in the game review on here.
Even if you turn down the detail its no worst than a PS3 or Xbox 360. I ran it at 1920x1200@60hz and got upper 50+fps and it was more than playable, I noticed NO slow down or stutter, gliches, nothing. It could have been a console game save for it crashing to BSOD which only PC's do!
You could Crossfire two HD4670's and play anything on the market. Maybe not at the Ultra or Very Highest detail setting but at the very least at default which is usually high.
wicko - Sunday, September 7, 2008 - link
Exactly... there is no need for the 9500, when you have the 9400 or 4450, or AMD's 780G platform. If you want a good HTPC, you should be buying one of those, not a 9500GT. Much less heat and noise, as well as power consumption, you won't be playing many games on them but then again who games on an HTPC?You might say, well the 9500 is good for media stuff but then I can also game with it! Well, just like everyone else is saying, you can get the much faster 4600 when it comes out to your region, or the 3800 now. The 9500GT is definitely pointless, and I think nVidia is hoping people will buy it without doing research.
DerekWilson - Saturday, September 6, 2008 - link
sry -- i had originally left this table out.Finally - Saturday, September 6, 2008 - link
[quote]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.[/quote]Would you kindly refrain from whipping out your Intel-appreciation crystal ball each time you review hardware that's completely unrelated to Intel's could-bes, might-bes and ifs?
Thank you.
PS: Review the cr*p out of it, once it is released, but for this time, if the topic is completely different, why? WHY?
PPS: Oh, the paycheck... I see.
DerekWilson - Saturday, September 6, 2008 - link
it's just frustrating to see neither nvidia nor amd really pushing performance in this segment. i think after seeing the crappy performance of the 9500 gt in this space that the unknown factor that intel brings to the party might be what we need to get nvidia and amd in line.tbh, i don't care so much about how larrabee performs (though it'd be nice to have another solid competitor in the market). what i do care about is nvidia and amd not writing intel off ... i want them to be afraid and to really push the envelope next year.
my speculation was not for the benefit of intel (they'll sink or swim on their own merit) but for the benefit of the consumer at the response of nvidia and amd to the possibility of competition at the low end.
djfourmoney - Sunday, September 7, 2008 - link
AMD pushed it, wait and see, faster card you can buy for under $100 no rebate needed!It beats the 9500 by 40% in all the samem resolutions they tested. Its also slower than a HD3850 but only by a tiny margin and given you don't need an external connector, draws only 75w under load and it perfect for the pre-built PC, HTPC PC crowd that might game on occasion is just fine. You can run games at 720p and frames rates will be more than exceptable.
nubie - Saturday, September 6, 2008 - link
FAIL!!This card is a failure, nevermind that ATI/AMD can spank it all the way to town and back with an HD3850, Its own siblings the 8800GS/ 8800GSO, 9600GT and 9600GSO simply mop the floor with it, and for around $10-20 more.
I am so sick of seeing posted in a forum: "I got a new video card and payed $120 for it, but the 8600GT won't let me play [insert any game from last 2 years] properly".
The "street" price of these cards is well north of $100. The web price may be in the $50-70 range, but the card is sold retail.
I wish nVidia would simply give up on this price point pushing. The market is saturated, no need to fill a point that you will need to unload your high-midrange cards into in a few months.
I don't see a reason for this card. Really. I could be biased, but why spend money on a card that will need a few driver revisions to be as compatible as the 8600GT already is?
I suppose that you generate 2 sales by releasing this card, but one of them may be to the competition if they are really disgusted.
I notice that nVidia go to interesting lengths to hide the stream processors and memory bus widths of their products. Nowhere on their site are there specifications for their product, you must go to a third party for the information most likely to determine if a certain product is likely to be fast enough.
Forget educating their customers either. I hope that Intel does shake things up, because this is nuts.