GeForce GT 220 And 210: DirectX 10.1 And 40nm Under $80

[qwertymac93]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]In my experience, it is usually significantly faster. There are a few choice games where the 4770 comes close, but since the 4850 costs less I can't imagine recommending a 4770 unless you cared more about power usage than playability.[/citation]

it doesn't matter because the 5750 is the same price is even faster AND supports dx11.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]qwertymac93[/nom]it doesn't matter because the 5750 is the same price is even faster AND supports dx11.[/citation]

...It's not the same price though. The 5750 is $30 more expensive, at a different price point with different competitors. This time, in 4870 territory... which is also faster due to it's 256-bit bus. That wider bus will give you significantly more performance than Dx11 for a long time to come.

Once again you can argue the 5750 will save power compared to the 4870, and once again I'd argue that performance is more important than $10 of power savings over the course of a year when you're buying a gaming card.

 

[qwertymac93]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]...It's not the same price though. The 5750 is $30 more expensive, at a different price point with different competitors. This time, in 4870 territory... which is also faster due to it's 256-bit bus. That wider bus will give you significantly more performance than Dx11 for a long time to come. Once again you can argue the 5750 will save power compared to the 4870, and once again I'd argue that performance is more important than $10 of power savings over the course of a year when you're buying a gaming card.[/citation]

the 512mb version of the 5750 is $109, the same exact price as a 512mb 4770. the 1gb is $129. if you ask me, there is no reason to buy a 4770 anymore, and the 4850 is almost useless, sure its a little faster, but doesn't support dx11 and runs hotter/louder.

 

[qwertymac93]

the power savings are for people with older/smaller power supplies, not saving money on power alone. you say the 4870 is cheaper, but not for someone who has to buy a $60 power supply to use it. not to mention people with cheap cases and poor cooling, both instances would be better served with a 5xxx series card. i know a 512mb 4850 is $100, but for just $10 more you could get better efficiency and save money in the long run. oh, and the 5750 has MORE bandwidth then the 4850, 256bit interface be damned! 128*4800>256*1986

 

[danny69t]

[citation][nom]zingam[/nom]It seems that NVIDIA makes stupid mistakes once in a while. Do you remember the puny GeForce FX 5200 and its whole crappy family?History repeats itself once again!Good luck NVIDIA![/citation]
i had e geforce 4MX 64MB that was faster than a geforce FX5200 128MB LOL!!!
i think that the gt220's low power consume is great. it's a good card for people that do "casual gaming", and most of the time is idling. i would go for the 4670 right now or wait for the radeon 57xx to come out of the closet

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]qwertymac93[/nom]the 512mb version of the 5750 is $109, the same exact price as a 512mb 4770. the 1gb is $129.
[/citation]

Where can you find a 5750 for sale for $109?
I can't find them for that price, if you have a link please share it. The cheapest I can find them is for $129...


[citation][nom]qwertymac93[/nom]you say the 4870 is cheaper, but not for someone who has to buy a $60 power supply to use it.[/citation]

I wouldn't recommend running a 5750 with a cheapo PSU either. Skimping on the PSU is a bad idea no matter how you slice it.

Either way, you're worlds better off paying 4870 & decent PSU than a 5750 & el cheapo PSU on many levels.

 

[qwertymac93]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Where can you find a 5750 for sale for $109?I can't find them for that price, if you have a link please share it. The cheapest I can find them is for $129...[/citation]

i was simply quoting the article. in the beginning of the 5750/70 review, it said the 1gb version was 129, and the 512mb version was 109. i don't think the 512mb cards have been released yet. i agree you should not use a cheap psu, but the 5750 uses over 60w less then the 4870, thats a significant amount. i think dx11 is worth the performance deficit alone, not to mention the lower power and quieter operation. im one of those people who NEEDS a quiet system, but for you, a 4870 might not even be noticeable.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]qwertymac93[/nom]i was simply quoting the article. in the beginning of the 5750/70 review, it said the 1gb version was 129, and the 512mb version was 109. i don't think the 512mb cards have been released yet.[/citation]

Well, it's hard to argue over the best option when you're recommending things you can't buy yet. When the 5750 512MB becomes available at $109, then we can revist how it performs compared to the 4850, but for now I'll heartily recommend a $130 4870 over either one from a gamer's standpoint.

As for Dx11, you might be making the time-honored mistake of assuming the next DirectX version will change the gaming landscape on release. History shows over and over that it usually doesn't make much difference for a few years to come, and often by the time it becomes a must-have feature there is a new generation of graphics cards -- more powerful, and cheaper -- and it's time to upgrade again.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[deadlockedworld]

Thank you Toms! I just noticed the listing on newegg today and wondered to myself "I wonder how those compare to a 4670?" Perfect timing.

 

[kquaker1]

Hmm, yay?

http://www.gizmoelectronics.blogspot.com
http://www.stophighcosts.com

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]Shadow703793[/nom]So basically a $45 9600GSO PWNED this $50-70 GT220/210?LOL! EPIC! nVidia is way too late....9600GSO: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6814121320[/citation]

Not JUST that... but the 210 & 220 are cheaper to make than the older 9600gso! These are nvidias first DX 10.1, while ATI is shipping DX 11 parts. ATI has been doing 10.1 since the 3800 series... ouch.

I'm already seeing posts from people buying a GT220 and saying "why are games kind of slow with this card?" - when a 4670 would have been bought for less with easily more power.

[citation][nom]zingam[/nom]It seems that NVIDIA makes stupid mistakes once in a while. Do you remember the puny GeForce FX 5200 and its whole crappy family?History repeats itself once again!Good luck NVIDIA![/citation]

Can't forget that! Remember the suckers who bought the 5200s thinking they were better than 4200s! LOL! I remember someone buying a "5200" from walmart and turns out that what was in the box (and in his computer) was actually a ti4200! Apparently, some idiot kid did a switch at Walmart - trying to do a "free" upgrade. LOL! We all told the guy he was lucky and to NOT return the used card The Ti4200s were better than the far more expensive $200 5600s too.

The 5200s, when NEW were at $100. Advertised as worlds first $100 DX9 cards! But the Ti4200s were down to $100 already. The 5200s still sell for about $25 today... it won't die.

As of now, AMD owns the low-end with the 4350 / 4670. ATI owns the mid-range with 4850/70s which compete with the GTX260~280 at 9800GTX prices and less than GT250 prices too! (Some guy just "upgraded" to the GT250 and wondered why its barely faster than his "old" 8800GT!) The 9800GT is a better $85 card than the 4670... but the 4850 is knocking at $90~110.

That leaves their best deal "GTX260" to fight against the 4870/5770... but the GTX 2xx line is EOL after Christmas. Nvidia has nothing against the 5800s at the price/performance.

Is the GTX 360 (guessing, its a good name) or whatever they call it going to be faster than the 5850? Oh, it better be... but by April 2010, the 5850 will be a $175 part with mature DX11 drivers. Plenty of time for the 5890 to come out by then (I bet, 1-2 days before Nvidia's official release). And in a few months after that, maybe a 5900 series

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]hannibal[/nom]Well these cards has to be cheaper to produce versus those older Nvidia card. I really hope that Nvidia will have their dx11 budget cards out sooner than later. It would be good from the customers point of view. But at this moment ATI seems to have the edge.[/citation]

Nvidia NEVER has their budget cards out early. They come out with TOP end models, wait about 6~12 months to release bottom end models. Look at the time frame between the 8800s vs 8400~8600s. GTX260+ have been out for about a year... while they've been renaming the 8800/8600s into 9x00 and gt2xx/g2xx cards

The marketing is this: Come out with the bad-ass card that most people won't buy and the limited thinking of most people is "GeForce is fastest"... even if they buy the $50 Geforce... its still "fastest". Much like "Intel is fastest" (this is an example - not a CPU war/fanboy crap) when in the real world - which CPU/system are you comparing? But to a tech novice... the thinking would be: A 3 year old 3Ghz P4 would be faster than todays $60 2.8Ghz Dual core CPU... even thou the AMD is more like 3-4x faster.

Its mostly marketing. This is something that nVidia isn't used to since the 5800/5600 days. Sure their 7800/7900s were a bit slower than X1900s - they still had something out on the market.

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]In my experience, it is usually significantly faster. There are a few choice games where the 4770 comes close, but since the 4850 costs less I can't imagine recommending a 4770 unless you cared more about power usage than playability.[/citation]

Agreed... but when the 4770 first came out (very limited), it was supposed to be a very good low-powered $100 video card. But its supplies were limited. By the time the stock was good, the 4850 was down to... $100! The 4770 was experience in the manufacturing processing.

[citation][nom]WarraWarra[/nom]MMhhh, wow so inefficient to release something that is worse than amd's new motherboard IGP chips. Ati 4670 is well bottom of the bottom and equivalent to a 5 year old gaming video card[/citation]

Huh? The 4670 is a bit over a year old. Its about on par with the 3870 card. When the 4670 came out (smaller process), it was a $65~85 part! Far cheaper than the $200+ MSRP for the 3870 or $150+ 3850. The 4670 easily kills any 3 year old 7900GT card and can play many games in 1920x1200. Not in the 60~100fps range, but pretty good in the 25~40fps range.

 

[Guest]

The problem I have is that the HD4670 used had memory running at 1600mhz, when the vast majority use memory at 2000mhz.

 

[Guest]

oh u so funny la! heuheuheu

 

[Guest]

First off, 99% of all the comments here are biased and semi-retarded.

I have a PNY Nvidia 1gb 24 Core Cuda gpu.

Wimpy stock, yes. Price was $45 at Best Buy.

So I overclocked this thing, stable final speeds for me were:

700MHz Core (Up from 475 stock)
520Mhz Memory (Up from 400 stock)

And the shader clock went from 1100Mhz to 1400.

That said, I don't play Crysis....so wtf do I care about those speeds?

I play many modern 2009-2010 games... no 2011 games as of yet however.

All the games I play are on medium or high. With well over 30fps, usually 40fps.

Bioshock 2 for example, high...v sync off, 35fps avg.

Now for an old game, Guild Wars... over 100 fps avg, in Eye of the north, the 2008 expansion, a solid 50+ always.

This card ISN'T that awful lol. You people act as if it's so bad your pc will barely run with it.

For the price, it's pretty good.... once you overclock. As for the Ati 430054853054 or whatever in the crap it's called.... ATi sucks. We all know this, I rather have a freaking Nvidia 5200LE than ATi garbage.

^ That's being biased.

The more you know.