NVIDIA’s GeForce GT 220: 40nm and DX10.1 for the Low-End
by Ryan Smith on October 12, 2009 6:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Test
As we mentioned earlier in this article, since NVIDIA is not shipping cards to reviewers, we do not have a traditional stock unit; and this is compounded by the vast array of speeds vendors can and are offering cards. For the purposes of our testing, we are clocking our Palit GT 220 Sonic Edition to 635MHz core, 1360MHz shader, 900MHz memory, and calling that our stock GDDR3 GT 200. The results should be close to where most of the GDDR3 GT 220s end up.
Meanwhile the 9600GSO we’re using is one of the original G92 based models, which means it has 96SPs, and is clocked at 550Mhz/1375MHz/800MHz, with 384MB of GDDR memory, all on a 192-bit bus. This is not to be confused with the poorly named 9600GSO 512, which is 48 shaders at higher clock speeds and a 128bit bus. It’s this latter 9600GSO that the GT 220 is expected to compete with. Unfortunately we were not able to acquire a 9600GT in time for this review, so this is the next-lowest NVIDIA card that we have on hand to use in our comparison.
Finally, the Radeon 4670 we’re using is a 512MB, 1000MHz memory model. They come as low as 800MHz.
| CPU: | Intel Core i7-920 @ 3.33GHz |
| Motherboard: | Intel DX58SO (Intel X58) |
| Chipset Drivers: | Intel 9.1.1.1015 (Intel) |
| Hard Disk: | Intel X25-M SSD (80GB) |
| Memory: | Patriot Viper DDR3-1333 3 x 2GB (7-7-7-20) |
| Video Cards: |
ATI Radeon HD 5870 |
| Video Drivers: |
NVIDIA ForceWare 190.62 |
| OS: | Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
80 Comments
View All Comments
Silverel - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
It doesn't really matter though does it?nVidia has you confused, and thusly, their plan has succeeded. It's really the price/performance ratio that it's at making any difference. Don't bother yourself with details on the renaming schemes. It's a new shiny!
MadMan007 - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
lol. "These aren't the details you're looking for" *waves hand* Yeah I know it's just a nitty gritty detail and the performance is what matters. I'd still like to know though :)Seramics - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
Upon checkin, it seems that there is indeed this 48 SP spec for 9600 GSO but its proper name is 9600GSO 512. So nv use the same exact thing (8800GS) and renamed it to another product (9600GSO) without improving anything. And now queitly chg the 9600GSO and lower the SP to half and din even chg the name? Why dun they release a 120 SP's GTX 280? Or simply renamed 9800 GTX to GTX 280?Lonyo - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
Actually they did take a 9800 and release it as a GTX280, of a fashion.The mobile GTX280 is just an 8800/9800 card rebadged and with all its SPs enabled (128). The mobile 8800/9800 had only either 96 or 112 ( I can't remember), so they made a 128 SP version and called it the GTX280-M
Seramics - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
Why is my fav site which is Anandtech can make such lousy silly mistakes? Ryan Smith, where did ur 9600 GSO came from? The spec of it is all wrong. It is a renamed 8800 GS with the same G92 core as 8800GT/8800GTS/9800GTX. It basically got 96 SP's with 192 bit memory bus. Even nvidia website is correct for a change. Look. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...tell me, enlighten me, where did ur 9600 GSO come from??????
Ryan Smith - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
There are 2 9600GSOs. The old one was G92 based and had 96SP. The new one is G94 based (9600GT) and has 48SP. The old one is no longer produced, while the new one is the current 9600GSO, and is the GSO NVIDIA and its partners are referring to when they compare the GT 220 to the 9600GSO.We actually tested an old model 9600GSO, but that's only because it's the slowest thing we have on-hand that's above a 9500GT.
Seramics - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
Thanks for replying Ryan. I just cant help thinking nvidia has gone to another low yet again. This new products coverage is basically too little too late and too slow and too expensive. Ppl looking for low end card can get their needs met by going for equivalently priced ATI cards. Despite releasing such slow card n so late in the market, they still refuse to sell it at lower price. How can GT220 worth USD69-79? A Radeon HD4670 easily can outperform it while costing similar or less (depending on ur location). And wht is G210 crap? 16 SP's? Nvidia muz be joking and must be laughing at every single ignorant noob stupid customers who would purchase a crap like that for like what? 40-50 dollars? Gotta be kidding me man. It doesnt even worth half that amount. Mayb if its 10 dollars, I will recommend it to ppl with 10 dollars budget for graphics card.gwolfman - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
To me, this looks like nVidia's trial run of some GT300 technology (audio over PCIe bus for example) before it's released.samspqr - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
well, to me this looks like nvidia taking too long to finish a product that was nearly done 3 quarters agoby nvidia's 2009 standards, you can expect GT300 to come out around 2010Q2
(I know they'll have some sort of launch much earlier, but I'd expect it to be just press samples, with less than spectacular clocks and a dustbuster fan, sitting somewhere in between 5870 and 5870x2, for a price that's irrelevant because of lack of availability... until some new respin comes around, as I said, close to 2010Q2)
yacoub - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
Two years after releasing the 800GT, NVidia releases a card with... half the performance!lol. what a waste. so how's the 5770/5750 review coming along? that'll be more interesting.