The Competition, Continued
Gigabyte GV-N96GMC-512H
GeForce 9600 GSO
The GV-N96GMC-512H is an interesting flavor of 9600 GSO. This Gigabyte card is factory overclocked at 650 MHz GPU and 1,625 MHz shaders, compared to the reference 600 MHz GPU and 1,500 MHz shader clock rates. Even the 900 MHz GDDR3 memory is running faster than the 800 MHz reference speed. Add to this the widest memory interface in the bunch (196-bits), along with a completely silent passive cooler, and the GV-N96GMC-512H is a compelling option.
Diamond Radeon HD 4670
Diamond’s version of the Radeon HD 4670 sticks close to reference, with a 750 MHz core and 800 MHz memory (1,600 effective) clock. But it’s far from a pushover. Until now, the Radeon HD 4670 has been the most powerful reference graphics card you can get without a discrete power cable. And with 320 stream processors and GDDR3 memory, there's no doubt the new GeForce GT 220 has its work cut out for it if it wants to usurp the ATI board. As a side note, Diamond’s Radeon HD 4670 will underclock itself to 165 MHz GPU and 300 MHz memory at idle to save power.
Gigabyte GV-N95TD3-512I
GeForce 9500 GT GDDR3
Like all of Gigabyte’s GeForce models we’re looking at today, the GV-N95TD3-512I is factory overclocked. At 650 MHz GPU and 1,625 MHz shader speeds, this 9500 GT is notably faster than the 550 MHz GPU and 1,375 MHz shader reference speeds. The 800 MHz GDDR3 is quick for this class of card, notably quicker than the DDR2 versions of the 9500 GT, and the aftermarket cooler keeps the GPU nice and cool.
Sapphire Radeon HD 4650 DDR2
Sapphire's Radeon HD 4650 uses the reference 600 MHz GPU speed, but pushes the memory a little further at 500 MHz (100 MHz more than the reference clock rate). The GPU is the same 320 stream processor model used in the Radeon HD 4670, but with a lower clock speed and DDR2, instead of GDDR3, memory. Despite that disadvantage, this card’s powerful GPU allows it to perform well against the GeForce 9500 GT even when equipped with GDDR3 memory.
Diamond Radeon HD 4550
Diamond’s Radeon HD 4550 card represents the low-end of the Radeon lineup as competition for the GeForce 210. The GPU runs at its reference 600 MHz clock rate, but the memory is 50 MHz slower than the 800 MHz reference speed. This card's GDDR3 memory is still quite a bit faster than the GeForce 210’s 400 MHz DDR2, but is limited by a 64-bit memory bus. Like the GeForce 210, this Radeon HD 4550 is passively cooled and can be converted to a half-height card if you're using it in an HTPC.
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