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
chizow - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
Of course, discerning consumers know better and demand new architectures! It wouldn't make any sense to accept old parts and rebadges that offer 2x the performance at a lower price!yacoub - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
er, 8800GT. fingers...poohbear - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
man i never thought i'd be saying this, but nvidia needs to get their shiat together!!! we need competition!!! they're getting trashed by AMD, what happened to em?Souleet - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
Everybody know NVIDIA is downplaying until they see how well Window 7 will be. Plus ATI releasing 5800 series with DX.11(software/games not going to be compatible with it until 2011).formulav8 - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
Huh? The new Radeons are compatible with every game the old radeons and geforce cards are and much better/faster.And there is a small list of games with DX11 features being released very soon that ONLY the new radeons can take advantage of.
And nVdia isn't downplaying anything. They simply DO NOT have a answer to ATI's new cards at this time. And apprently it won't be till the first part of next year that they will have their answer.
Why I keep seeing people trying to downplay nvidia's faults is beyond me?
Jason
Souleet - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
Well I guess we have to wait and see. You cannot assume they do not have the answer. It is not the right time to release something at the caliber yet. I'm not bias but it seem that people are saying that ATI have won but there is no facts/comparison. Sure you can compare ATI 5800 series to the GT295/275(old graphic) but I think everybody want to see GT300 series face off with 5800 series. Remember what happen to ATI when NVIDIA came out with SLI? ATI release crossfire(not innovated) just to try and match NVIDIA instead of creating something more innovated. ATI never had a solution to defeat SLI and that is the fact.JarredWalton - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
I wouldn't say ATI has "won", but they are currently leading. NVIDIA isn't releasing Fermi right now because they can't -- they don't have the hardware ready. The card shown was a mock-up part, and you don't use a fake card if you have real product ready. All signs are Jan/Feb 2010 for the GT300 release. That gives ATI a full four months of being the ONLY DX11 GPU supplier, right at a major buying time for consumers. NVIDIA isn't out by any stretch of the imagination -- just as ATI wasn't out with the 2000 and 3000 series, and NVIDIA weathered the FX 5000 times. Short-term, though, this has to be hurting.On the other hand, I can say that NVIDIA is the way to go on virtually any gaming laptop right now. ATI has some competitive parts, yes, but I wouldn't touch them until they get reference drivers for all major parts on their site. Depending on laptop manufacturers for driver updates is a really bad idea, and NVIDIA thankfully addressed that area a while back.
brybir - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
Your statement is only partially true.There are several games that have some DirectX 11 features out right now. Perhaps the more accurate thing to say is that DirectX 11 will not see feature set adoption en mass until sometime in 2011.
I think ATI somewhat admits this as they spent a good deal of time tweaking some of its driver and hardware features to boost the performance of directX 9 engine games. There was something about that on Anand a few weeks ago about that.
BenSkywalker - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
You show the 9600GSO winning the majority of the benches you decided to allow it to take part in, it is cheaper then the 4670, and the 4670 is the clear winner?Why do you bother quoting the price of the 9600GT when you refused to show benchmarks for it?
Right now on the Egg you can get a 9600GSO for $40 AR, $60 before rebate. The article may be right in terms of the parts that are launching being a bad value, but more then anything that is because of how soundly they are bested by nV's existing parts- which are already faster and cheaper then the 4670.
Ryan Smith - Monday, October 12, 2009 - link
It's one of those 96SP GSOs based on G92. We include for reference only; you can't buy them any more (and the 96SP model listed on Newegg is wrong, it's a 48SP model).