NVIDIA 9500 GT: Mainstream Graphics Update
by Derek Wilson on September 5, 2008 10:15 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Performance
While we can't game at high resolutions, we can at least play these games at higher settings than integrated graphics solutions. While gamers won't really be keen on the 9500 GT, we've already mentioned why it is important to provide users with a good experience and developers with a good platform to develop on. Let's take a look at what we actually get. We've included a Radeon 3850 for reference which can be had for around the $100 mark just to show how much more you get for a little more cash.
Age of Conan
For Age of Conan, the lowest resolution we can select is 1024x768. This puts a little pressure on as we wanted to test at high settings where we were able. In retrospect, this may be a bit too aggressive for this game with the 9500 GT. Cranking down to medium settings might prove a little more playable.
The 3850 offers much higher performance than the rest of the pack for it's higher price. The 9500 GT is neck and neck with the 8600 GT which is as expected. The 3650 lags a bit here even though Age of Conan seemed to really favor ATI hardware when we looked at the 4k series recently.
Crysis
We went with medium quality settings across the board on this, as Crysis really reaches beyond current hardware. As with Age of Conan, though we could play this at the lowest res we tested with the 3850, we would really need to drop to low quality on most options in order to get the framerate up to a comfortable place.
The 9500 GT does lead the 3650, and trades blows with the 8600 GT (which really isn't a surprise). The 3850 does offer a good advantage as well.
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
Oblivion is getting a little long in the tooth, but it's important to look at it as a baseline. We should expect good performance on this game. And we'll look at the ultra high defaults to see what happens.
We are playable at up to 1024x768 with the 9500 GT with pretty good quality settings. This isn't bad, but it isn't great either. Note that for about $25 more (about 33% more money) you can get a card that gives you more than double the frame rate in oblivion at 1680x1050 and is very playable at that res as well. Value isn't a key factor in these "value" cards is it?
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
This test is done with everything cranked up except antialiasing.
And we see more of the same.
Race Driver GRID
Once again, high quality settings except for enabling AA.
And one more time: 3850 for not that much more cash blows away the 9500 GT in price performance. Performance of the 8600 GT just trails the 9500 GT. The only twist here is that the 3650 catches up to the 9500 GT at the highest res we tested for a just-less-than-playable frame rate.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
37 Comments
View All Comments
poohbear - Friday, September 5, 2008 - link
I think your first paragraph in the article sums up how alot of us feel about graphics hardware: we want to see the boundaries pushed and see what the next gen brings in terms of graphics. The 9500gt hardly does anything in that regards for most of your audience. I was hoping the low end would get a nice boost in performance but its depressing to see it has the same performance as the 8600gt, and the 8600gt had the same performance as the 7600 it replaced. Is this segment of the graphics market even moving forward!?!?seriously, u should just recommend people spend the extra $40 and pick up a 8800gt which obliterates these low end cards. just my 2 cents.
epyon96 - Friday, September 5, 2008 - link
It has just enough sarcasm, cyncism, and content to captivate the audience in a boring release.The thesis of improving $100 graphics cards in order to induce more developers to PC is interesting. I respectfully disagree that it will actually induce the developers to PCs. The simple reality is that PC games do not sell anywhere near as well. There are other factors pushing console sales that are completely beyond the control of graphic card manufacturers. Granted, they are not helping the situation by creating an unbalanced performance/value curve on the lower end. However, even if the situation is improved with the $100 cards improving, it is simply too late and not enough.
Too many people and too many system builders are already set on releasing computers with integrated GFX and they are simply pathetic. Furthermore, with the recent rapid shift to laptops from PCs, integrated gfx I imagine will only increase since integrated gfx hsa much better battery life. Mobility seems to be the future of PCs. People no longer regard the PC as a entertainment device for games but a tool for business or home enterntainment where they can connect their XBox, Wii, and PS3.
Furthermore, piracy is such a big deal with PCs that developers are using that as a reason when it isn't. It is a catch 22 phrase with developers when their product launches fail and they automatically blame piracy. It has gotten to the point where developers will automatically shy away from PCs in favor of Consoles. The classic genre of FPS that PCs are known for are even shifting to consoles. Developers would much rather develop an elaborate and expensive new control interface to cater to the hardcore ex-PC gamers if it means sticking it to a console. Look at Gears of War, Halo franchise, and Metal Gear Solid; all games that would have benefited from the keyboard-mouse PC. What we have left are the premium tier 1 developers like Blizzard with WoW. EA sports is a joke if you look at their track record for developing actual original games. They rely on purchasing other smaller shops like Westwood and Take Two for C&C and Grand Theft Auto. However, those great smaller shops are disappearing. The trend does not seem to stop.
If Intel Larrabee succeeds in creating better value in the integrated graphics (we are talking about 30-40x improvements over current at the same price point), I see it only benefiting developers and professional graphics engineers. Other factors that are pitted against PC game developers are the costs. It seems that the game development costs have skyrocked exponentially ever since developers equated eye-candy for game sales. Some may argue that they enjoy gameplay and point towards the Wii as an example of gameplay over quality argument. However, the correlation between eye-candy and game sales is undeniable. Prettier games with good marketing will sell; just not a top seller. It is an easy way out for lack of innovative gameplay for some developers.
Without major shifts in consumer behavior that is not currently evident in the 5-year marketing plans of the industry leaders, the PC gaming industry seems to be on a downward spiral without much hope in recovering. However, the glimmer of hope is that the likely result is that the games that are actually left on PCs will likely be a higher calibre. It is a feeding frenzy where inferior developers will only develop for easy-sell consoles while the remaining developers for PCs are the Blizzards, id, Valve, etc. It raises the average quality of PC games.
poohbear - Saturday, September 6, 2008 - link
oh, and nice post epyon96. its great to read an articulate post like that. cheers for the info.whatthehey - Saturday, September 6, 2008 - link
Yet another doom and gloom "PC gaming is dying" commentary that is, as usual, completely off the mark. Gaming platforms are cyclical, and there are too many advantages to PCs to totally ignore them. GoW and Halo (and Megal Gear) have always - ALWAYS - been console titles. Halo and GoW were both 360 exclusives, which means Microsoft paid big money to keep them off other platforms in order to entice people to the 360. EA Sports? Don't make me laugh. Sure, the latest copy of Madden will sell like hotcakes on consoles, but sporting games have never been a huge seller for PCs... at least not in the past 10+ years.The costs of developing games is so high that to eliminate platforms totally is a terrible decision. If it costs $10-20 million (or more) to make a game, it typically costs a small fraction of that to port the game after it's tested. The reason certain ports sell poorly on PCs usually has more to do with them being available on consoles for months or even years prior to the PC release. Halo 2 is the perfect example: not only was it 3 years late, but MS made it a Vista exclusive. Gee, I wonder why it didn't sell?
PC gaming might be in a down cycle right now, but PCs are fast outpacing the current consoles (again), so as the gap widens we will start to see more devs return to PC in order to showcase the latest and greatest. 40 years from now, we'll still have pundits claiming the latest consoles are the death of PC gaming, but until PCs stop existing there will always be a large market.
wicko - Sunday, September 7, 2008 - link
I agree with quite a few things said here, like piracy being an "issue" but not really.. but I disagree with PC gaming doing poorly. Actually, PC gaming has apparently been as great as ever, however the difference is that PC gaming is not just for the hardcore anymore. A lot of casual games exist for the PC and its been a very successful venture. Sure, there have been less shooters for the PC, and when some come out they tend to be utter shit ports (mercs 2), late (halo 2) or buggy (GoW). But the MMO's and the RTS games have made up for that, I mean look at WoW for crying out loud, HUGE amount of people playing that (with a monthly fee no less, I do not understand that really..).I think there is a major convenience with consoles, and that is that the games are guaranteed(99% of the time) to work. You don't have to worry about how good your console is, because they're equal. But going off cost is bullshit. The cost for a console + TV is relatively equal to the cost of a game capable PC + monitor. For instance, a 360 and a 32" tv is likely to cost (300+600) 900 before taxes. A decent gaming PC and 20" monitor is going to cost 900 as well (700+200), and you could even build a cheaper PC without sacrificing much power.
JPForums - Monday, September 8, 2008 - link
Another thing to consider is the fact that many people will buy a PC anyways. So all you really need to do is take the cost difference between that PC and a gaming PC. Most systems I've upgraded to be game capable only really need a video card. With 8800GTs under $130 and 9800GTX/4850s under $180, it isn't very expensive to make a perfectly game capable PC. (Assuming you don't use a 24+ inch monitor)Crysis was mentioned in another post. I run Crysis on Athlon 64 X2 processor with a single 8800GTS on a 22" monitor. Sure I can't crank the graphics settings to the absolute max, but I can easily get them high enough to compare to current consoles. Athlon 64 X2s are selling in entry level systems. Most people (gamer or otherwise) get a system with a Core2 Duo or better processor anyways, so they have even more headroom.
Further, the cyclic upgrade cycle argument for a console over a PC is a load of crap. I don't have to upgrade my PC at all to maintain this level of performance. The graphics don't get worse, there is just a larger disparity between what a PC is capable of and what the game can do. If a PC can outperform a console, it will always be able to unless it breaks. You only need to upgrade if you want more. The advantage of the PC is that you have that option where you have to wait another 5 years with a console. Case and point, I bought a Radeon 9700 back in the day. It served me well for 7 years. (Still fine, just not so good for new games) Naturally, I upgraded my primary system long before the 7 year mark, but the card was still very useful in my secondary system for LAN parties and the likes. Oh, and for the price of the new consoles when they first come out, you can upgrade to an upper midrange or lower highend video card 3 times, or upgrade the video card, CPU, and memory with some cash to spare. Doing this, you can maintain an increasingly large advantage over the console. Finally, consoles are sold at low or nonexistent profit margins because they make back the money by charging a (up to 50%) premium on games. Big title releases are usually $40 - $50 (Retail) on PC where they are $50 - $60 (Retail) on the Xbox360/PS3.
That said, I respect the advantage that consoles have in lack of install and games just working. However, the lack of install linits one of the best features of PC games: the ability to modify or add to the game. While consoles are picking up on this, they aren't at parity yet.
I also agree with the fact that many PC titles are buggy upon release. For me, it isn't a big issue, as I hardly ever buy games (PC or console) directly on release. They few PC games that have been appealing enough to actually buy on release haven't actually been that buggy. (I.E. C&C 3 Tiberium Wars: 1680x1050 + 16X AF + 4X AA produced artifacts so I had to move down to 2X AA ... fixed in a graphics driver update about 2 weeks later) However, these issues are a big deal to many people. (especially technically disinterested people) It should be noted that some so called "bugs" are actually hardware issues in particular systems. As consoles have their own share of hardware issues (RROD) and PCs are much easier and often cheaper to repair (if you know someone who can do it), I'm inclined to excuse a small number of these.
So what it really comes down to is whether or not you are willing to put up with the PCs quirks for the additional power and flexibility it will give you. For most people it seems the answer is no. However, there will always be a crowd willing to put in extra work to get extra benefit.
mmntech - Sunday, September 7, 2008 - link
The convenience part sums up why I abandoned PC gaming. I got sick of buying games that were essentially pubic betas and I got sick of sinking money into a system just to play them at a reasonable frame rate. With my PS3, I just pop the disc in and it works. No endless patches to download, no intrusive DRM to worry about, and the graphics are better than what my current PC can deliver.The biggest mistake PC developers have made is that they've spent far too much time catering to the hardcore crowed. Thus you get games (*cough* Crysis *cough*) that require high end, $1000+ systems to run on. By doing this, they've developed themselves into a corner. There's a reason why EA has been successful with titles like the Sims. They're accessible to causal gamers and don't require a Core 2 Extreme and Quad SLI to be properly enjoyed. Hardcore gamers only account for a small proportion of PC gaming. Staying on the cutting edge doesn't matter to most gamers. If you don't target these people, games aren't going to sell. Hardware cost is a huge thing. What you forget is that with a console, you're guaranteed at least five years of stability where as a gaming PC may only get half that lifespan, if that. For example, over the PS2's lifespan, I've had three separate gaming systems and have made countless upgrades to them. Games should be developed from a middle up perspective, rather than top down as they currently are. I should expect more advanced features with higher end hardware. However, I should be able to buy any midrange system off the shelf at Best Buy (equipped with GPUs such as this one being reviewed here) and expect to be able to play any game at a reasonable frame rate and detail level. In other words, 30fps at medium settings at at least 1024x768. Only Enemy Territory was able to accomplish this.