Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,651 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Quote:


The entry of Radeon HD 4670 did disturb NVIDIA's position, in a segment touted to be one of the cash-cow segments for both NVIDIA and AMD. It is to counter the HD 4870 in its price-range (by easing production-costs), that NVIDIA released a refreshed GeForce 9600 GSO+. The die on the GPU reads "G94-201-B1", pointing that the GPU uses the 55nm silicon fab process (9600 GSO used G92). With the reduced transistor-count on the G94 core, manufacturing the chip becomes cheaper. The real change however, is that NVIDIA made some significant changes to its shader and memory domains, hence the use of G94 core.

The shader count has been reduced from 96 on the 9600 GSO, to 48. This, by disabling 16 shaders from the G94 core. The core is clocked at 650/1675 MHz (core/shader). The GPU is allowed to use the complete width of its memory bus: 256-bit GDDR3. The card features 512 MB of memory, clocked at 1800 MHz. The memory chips featured on the Inno3D card are made by Qimonda, and have a 1.2 ns latency. The card uses a simplistic circular cooler for the GPU. It is expected to be priced at US $87.

Source
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
Change the name to 9600 GSO- and you are set nVidia
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
668 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by RonindeBeatrice
View Post

So, let's take a great card, the 9600GSO, rape its name by releasing a crippled 9600GT as the 9600GSO+ and see how many people we can dupe.

nVidia the way it's meant to be played.

Indeed. You can get the 9600GSO cheaper than the crippled big brother in some places, so I don't see how they expect it to sell
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
473 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by lolhax View Post
Indeed. You can get the 9600GSO cheaper than the crippled big brother in some places, so I don't see how they expect it to sell
.
Seriously, those $50 GSO's are an incredible deal. Nvidia must be getting desperate and tricking people with naming schemes. Pretty soon they'll take the 8600GT, die shrink it, give it worse memory, less shaders and everything and call it the "GTX 240CCR Special Edition+ Turbo".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,954 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by Keatonus View Post
Seriously, those $50 GSO's are an incredible deal. Nvidia must be getting desperate and tricking people with naming schemes. Pretty soon they'll take the 8600GT, die shrink it, give it worse memory, less shaders and everything and call it the "GTX 240CCR Special Edition+ Turbo".
lol.
nvidia can't name their cards for turds. i say nvidia needs to clean up their act. we need some healthy competition here. seriously, even their new dies won't support dx11, let alone 10.1. all i can say i hope they do well for the sake of cheep prices for all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,431 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by JTD92 View Post
If the price is right the 9600GSO+ could an insane overclocker and folding card.
Like $30?

Because the real GSO can be had for $60 shipped.
 

·
PC Evangelist
Joined
·
47,375 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by JTD92
View Post

If the price is right the 9600GSO+ could an insane overclocker and folding card.

No. with 48SP is not going to do much. 9600GSO/8800GS beat 9600GT with 64SP in folding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
617 Posts
*cough* *cough*

Quote:


Originally Posted by dragosmp
View Post

It's not that it's a bad name, it's 2/3 of the 9600GT GPU with otherwise identical specs, so it will probably behave like a 9600GSO... but these names GT GTX GSO GS GTS...

Here's Nvidia naming guide rev 1.0: the third S is better than the third O (GTS vs GTO), but if the S is in the second position, it's weaker than a T (GS vs GT) while the numbers that come afterwards are complete nonsense 9600 better than 8800 IF the 9600 has a GT, not a GSO and IF the 8800 has a GS not a GT... which are actually the same card, the 9600GSO and 8800GS


My take (illustrated below) is the new GSO will do better with AA/AF than the old one, but overall they should be evenly matched. Also the aprent lack of shader power of the G94 is compensated by higer shader speed (MHz):



Assumptions =)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
615 Posts
It should be noticeably weaker in some areas.

Someone fire up GRID to see how big the difference is.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,699 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by AN HERO
View Post

It should be noticeably weaker in some areas.

Someone fire up GRID to see how big the difference is.

and stronger in some other areas as well.

but rofl

Quote:


Here's Nvidia naming guide rev 1.0: the third S is better than the third O (GTS vs GTO), but if the S is in the second position, it's weaker than a T (GS vs GT) while the numbers that come afterwards are complete nonsense 9600 better than 8800 IF the 9600 has a GT, not a GSO and IF the 8800 has a GS not a GT... which are actually the same card, the 9600GSO and 8800GS

i feel sorry for the guy who actually remembers that gibberish...
 

·
Nobody
Joined
·
6,466 Posts
I don't understand what the actual point of this card is and what Nvidia is trying to accomplish.

By now they should have noticed this renaming and crippling of cores isn't a good strategy. They had better come up with an actual solution to the problem quick instead of trying all these quick fixes.

But that's just imo.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,992 Posts
Don't discount it so fast. The 4670, despite being faster on paper than an HD 3870, still loses out to even an HD 3850 in most cases because of it's lack of bandwidth.

48SPs is a little weak, but I don't think they would call it a 9600GSO+ if it wasn't faster. Maybe for folding its not quite as good, but nVidia doesn't care about folding. The 9600GT, despite having a little over half of the SPs as the 8800GT, is very close in performance.

I'm going to wait for the benchmarks, because this card should overclock like a demon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rx7racer View Post
I don't understand what the actual point of this card is and what Nvidia is trying to accomplish.

By now they should have noticed this renaming and crippling of cores isn't a good strategy. They had better come up with an actual solution to the problem quick instead of trying all these quick fixes.

But that's just imo.
nVidia is transitioning to 55nm, and it looks like they are making a few changes along the way. I don't know if they are having trouble with more complex chips and had to cut back, or if they are just getting creative, but I'm not going to judge.
 

·
Nobody
Joined
·
6,466 Posts
That is true Nathris, they may surprise me, but I can't help but to look at this as teh same I did with the 8600GTS and 8600GT. They just take too many sp's away, they came back nicely with the G94 in the 9600GT and learned their lesson as they revised that core to reflect.

I just think this was a quick stop gap to try and save market share, not because of teh restructuring and transition to 55nm chips.
 

·
!
Joined
·
17,294 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by nathris
View Post

Don't discount it so fast. The 4670, despite being faster on paper than an HD 3870, still loses out to even an HD 3850 in most cases because of it's lack of bandwidth.

48SPs is a little weak, but I don't think they would call it a 9600GSO+ if it wasn't faster. Maybe for folding its not quite as good, but nVidia doesn't care about folding. The 9600GT, despite having a little over half of the SPs as the 8800GT, is very close in performance.

I'm going to wait for the benchmarks, because this card should overclock like a demon.

nVidia is transitioning to 55nm, and it looks like they are making a few changes along the way. I don't know if they are having trouble with more complex chips and had to cut back, or if they are just getting creative, but I'm not going to judge.

How is it faster on paper?

128-bit memory interface?
GDDR3?
750mhz core vs 775mhz core?

o_O
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top