The Competition: Radeon HDs And GeForces
Remember what we said on page one: "The sub-$80 market represents a very diverse model selection with the least price differential, along with the tightest margins." Well, we meant it.
This means that the GeForce GT 220 and 210 are entering a crowded melee of graphics cards, not only from the competition, but from existing offerings in Nvidia's portfolio.
The GeForce 210 is priced similarly to the Radeon HD 4350 and Radeon HD 4550, in addition to the GeForce 9400 GT and 9500 GT DDR2:
| GeForce 210 | GeForce 9400 GT | GeForce 9500 GT DDR2 | Radeon HD 4350 | Radeon HD 4550 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fabrication Process | 40nm | 55nm | 55nm | 55nm | 55nm |
| Graphics Clock (Texture and ROP units) | 589 MHz | 550 MHz | 550 MHz | 600 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Processor Clock (Shader Units) | 1,402 MHz | 1,350 MHz | 1400 MHz | N/A | N/A |
| Memory Clock (Clock Rate/Data Rate) | 500 MHz | 400 MHz | 500 MHz | 400 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory Interface | 64-bit | 64-bit | 128-bit | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| Stream Processors | 16 | 16 | 32 | 80 | 80 |
| ROP Units | 4 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 4 |
| Texture Filtering Units | 8 | 8 | 16 | 8 | 8 |
| Microsoft DirectX/Shader model | 10.1/4.1 | 10/4 | 10/4 | 10.1/4.1 | 10.1/4.1 |
Based on this, we can see that the GeForce 210 is looking very close to the GeForce 9400 GT. Both sport 16 processor cores. But looking closer, we notice that the 9400 GT can handle twice the raster operations per clock, and has a memory interface twice as wide. As far as competition goes, the Radeon HD 4350 and Radeon HD 4550 look quite daunting with their 80 shader cores. But keep in mind that the Nvidia and ATI architectures are so different that the number of cores are not comparable. Really, the biggest threat comes from the DDR2 version of the GeForce 9500 GT, which outclasses the competition for the price.
Now let's look at the GeForce GT 220, which has some stiffer competition, including the Radeon HD 4650 and Radeon HD 4670, and GeForce 9500 GT DDR3 and 9600 GSO (while even touching the bottom end of GeForce 9600 GT price territory).
| GeForce GT 220 | GeForce 9500 GT DDR3 | GeForce 9600 GSO | Radeon HD 4650 | Radeon HD 4670 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fabrication Process | 40nm | 55nm | 65nm | 55nm | 55nm |
| Graphics Clock (Texture and ROP units) | 615 MHz | 550 MHz | 550 MHz | 600 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Processor Clock (Shader Units) | 1,566 MHz | 1,400 MHz | 1,375 MHz | N/A | N/A |
| Memory Clock (Clock Rate/Data Rate) | 800 MHz | 800 MHz | 800 MHz | 400 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory Interface | 128-bit | 128-bit | 192-bit | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| Stream processors | 48 | 16 | 96 | 320 | 320 |
| ROP Units | 8 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 16 |
| Texture Filtering Units | 16 | 8 | 48 | 32 | 32 |
| Microsoft DirectX/Shader model | 10.1/4.1 | 10/4 | 10/4 | 10.1/4.1 | 10.1/4.1 |
Notice how both the GeForce GT 220 and GeForce 9600 GSO are vying for the same territory between the GeForce 9500 GT and GeForce 9600 GT. This is a very crowded segment right now. What's interesting is that Nvidia has been battling ATI's very compelling Radeon HD 4670 with the GeForce 9600 GSO up until now.
Now, the 9600 GSO is a great card, but it's based on the large 65nm G92 GPU. This is a higher-end piece not really able to make much margin in the low-end market segment. The GeForce 9600 GSO is consequently the only card in this neighborhood that requires a discrete PCI Express (PCIe) power cable to supplement its slot, and the card isn't nearly as efficient as competing products in this price segment. On the bright side, it's the only competing card with a 192-bit memory interface, so it can handle memory-intensive tasks like anti-aliasing a little better.
With this in mind, our feeling is that Nvidia is hoping the new GeForce GT 220 (specifically, the GDDR3 flavor) will be able to replace the more expensive to manufacture GeForce 9600 GSO as its Radeon HD 4670-fighter. This is something to keep in mind when we're looking at the benchmarks. In addition, the DDR2 version of the GeForce GT 220 will probably butt heads with the Radeon HD 4650, in addition to its GeForce 9500 GT GDDR3 predecessor.
LOL Nvidia Just now work at DirectX 10.1
When ATI Radeon have a New Videocard and the Best in The World with DirectX 11 
AMD-ATI Rullz
ATI rullz, they have 2. it keeps AMD alive.
I think they're both 64-bit
I don't really know what to make of these cards..two steps forwards, one step back is the closest I can come to a definitive impression.
The 210 seems like it' only good for low-spec HTPC's, or environments where minimal power draw is an absolute necessity. The features like CUDA and extended video acceleration are nice, but do they make up for that 64-bit drudgery that seems to go hand-in-hand with so many nVidia offerings? No, it doesn't..the competition in this price range is too stiff to start making those kind of cut-backs.
Just drop the junk and focus on what's good. The 220 is far superior to the 210, good enough to compete with AMD's budget offerings whilst sporting some nice new features. That 210 on the other hand is the 'MX' of modern technology..you just can't fob people off with this junk anymore, in my opinion. Roll with the technology instead of repeatedly rolling out junk that can barely compete with yesteryear's products..
Not what i was hoping for, why cant nvidia make a card that will rival the ati 4770 and the 5750, the gts 250 power consumption is way to high, i hope the GeForce GTS 340 is good
Compare these cards to say, the Geforce Geforce 2 MX 200, Geforce FX 5600 or the Geforce 7300LE - cards supported the latest features only in name, not in performance. Same thing seems to be happening again.
I reckon even onboard video would be enough to lure budget uses away from the 210. nVidia has obviously skimped, scraped and cut corners until they're left with half a decent card, resulting in a very limited life-span unless you can settle for basic of tasks, very light gaming as well as longer CUDA processing times.
Alas, nVidia obviously feels there's a market for this stuff. But I learned my lesson a long time ago not to be duped by the fancy sales talk. nVidia can make good products, but they make recycled junk, and that's what I think they've done here. The 220 seems OK but that 210..it's a lemming in my book.
*220.
now if only you could SLI these midgets and get more decent performance
which is the better ati radeon hd4350 or the geforce 8400 gs
your opinions are well needed
I have the gt 220 and i think its a very nice card
i have the asus engt 220 with 1 gb ddr3 memory. This is a low-profile card and very nice for games like call of duty 4.
It comes with a few programs (asus gamer osd, smartdoctor and some other programs)
When i play Call of Duty 4 it runs max detail very easy. And on the Nvidia site it says that the following games are viewed good on card:
- World of Warcraft
- Spore
- The Sims 3
- Fallout 3
- Left 4 Dead.
I have played left 4 dead myself on max quality, and its very nice gameplay
related links:
nvidia site: http://www.nvidia.com/object/produ [...] 20_us.html
videocard benchmark :
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ [...] rce+GT+220