The Card

This card, being built on a smaller process than it's predecessor, is capable of more performance in the same form factor. Alternate, NVIDIA could make it a little cooler and little quieter and still hit the same or slightly better performance than the part they are replacing. This seems to be the option they have selected for the 9500 GT.

But there is a fundamental issue with the timing of NVIDIA's low end releases. We see high end parts first, mid-range parts next, and low end parts last for any given GPU generation. While we do enjoy the fact that AMD has decided to target the mid-range first and then expand up and down in performance later, their history shows a trend of taking too long to bump up the performance of their lowest common denominator. AMD is promising some change in this area very soon, but we will have to wait until we finish our tests and are able to talk about that to ... well ... talk about that :-)

There are reasons that this makes business sense. For example, parts from higher price brackets, once replaced by faster hardware can be sold at lower price points before new hardware is available. This wouldn't be as effective with a top to bottom launch of new hardware (or if either company started with the low end). But that doesn't change the fact that the less the low end lags current technology, the faster new techniques can be used by game developers.

In any case, what we have today with our new G96 based low end hardware doesn't rock the boat in any major ways. Yes it is faster than the previous part at this price (8500 GT), and yes it competes with previous generation mid-range hardware (8600 GT). But that just doesn't seem like much after the launch of GT200. Here's how it stacks up in terms of processing power:

  GeForce 8500 GT GeForce 8600 GT GeForce 9500 GT
IC Codename G86 G84 G96
Fab Process 80nm 80nm 65nm
Shader Pipes 16 32 32
Shader Clock 900MHz 1190MHz 1400MHz
ROPs 8 8 8
Core Clock 450MHz 540MHz 550MHz
Memory Bus Width 128 bit 128 bit 128 bit
Memory Data Rate 800MHz 1400MHz 1600MHz

We can see that this is just another evolutionary low end part. Yes, volume is large, but apparently offering something that really improves value is out of the question.

The fact is that, traditionally, you get more (if not the most) for your money at the $200-$300 price point. Above this we see diminishing returns on performance per dollar, and below this you really just don't get what you pay for (even though you aren't spending much in some cases).

This needs to change. And it needs to change without diminishing what we get at the midrange. We aren't asking for higher return on your investment at lower prices, but we would love it if the value curve would flatten out a bit. Diminishing returns at the high end are fine (people will pay a premium for the top of the line) but it is just doubly insulting to sell us an under performing part and charge us way too much for the performance we do get.

We don't see any sign of change today, and we probably won't see any sort of major shift next time around either. But we will keep making noise when we have the opportunity. Maybe AMD's next mainstream launch will be a bit more interesting.

Mainstream Graphics Today Performance
Comments Locked

37 Comments

View All Comments

  • djfourmoney - Sunday, September 7, 2008 - link

    HD4670 crushes it and its already available in Europe for 67-77 Euro depending on website. That's under $100-105US and while the 9600GT is around $150 online (before rebate) I don't ASSUME rebates will happen and I don't purchase based on rebates.

    For people with say Dell 530's like my mother's PC, most people can't afford to spend more than $100 or aren't willing too.

    Hardcore PC gamers should not confuse themselves with "average" PC users, you aren't one of them and they aren't one of you. If feel spending $200 on a card is justifted, I for one don't. I am a console loyalist that occasionally plays games on the PC. Now that my PC and Console and connected to the same monitor, I don't have to leave the room to play either. I plan on combining both, but I still have a PS2 and I haven't moved on to a PS3 yet and price really as nothing to do with it.

    I priced it out and its much cheaper for me to buy a few PC titles and a decent video card, than a PS3 used or new. MS just reduced the cost of the Xbox 360 to $199 and I recently talked a co-worker into buying a new PC and he gave his old one to his son. Great, however he wants to play Rock Band and ummm the current GPU won't cut it. I suggested a 9600GT at first, but I'll tell him to pick up a HD4670 and while it won't run quite as fast as the 9600GT, its close enough and the price is right. He was about to buy his son a Xbox 360, but I told him he could get a good card and that's one less thing he'll be buying his son for Xmas, since many Games For Windows titles are Xbox 360 titles too.

    The PC game market needs better titles more accessable games, accesable graphics. They should also look into selling bundled video cards with a few included titles, not just one. Most PC owners may only have one game, maybe too. As more people are connecting there PC's to HDTV's and using there PC's at Media Centers, this is yet another chance for the PC Game market to captialize on this.
  • frozentundra123456 - Saturday, September 6, 2008 - link

    Another way to improve graphics upgradability on consumer PCs would be to build OEM computers with a better power supply. Almost any computer you buy from a best buy type store will have a power supply that is only around 300 watts. This limits upgrades from integrated graphics to an HD3650 or 9500GT type card, and even then the power supply is still marginal.

    I agree that spending 50 to 100 dollars more on the graphics card will give much better performance per dollar, but one then has to upgrade the power supply which adds another 100 dollars or so to the price. Also upgrading the power supply is something most non-technical users might not want to attempt, while simply dropping in a graphics card is something almost anyone can do.

    Since the manufacturer has to include a power supply anyway (obviously), how much more could it cost to make it 400 to 500 watts instead of 300?? The user would then be able to upgrade to a mid-level card instead of the low end without having to upgrade the power supply anyway.

  • GaryJohnson - Saturday, September 6, 2008 - link

    The OEMs don't really have any incentive to do that. It would decrease profit and the average computer user wouldn't know the difference. Besides, they'd much rather you come back and buy a whole new PC from them when you decide you need an upgrade.
  • idealego - Saturday, September 6, 2008 - link

    You can buy passively cooled 9500 GTs for about $70, maybe less. This appeals to some people for a number of reasons: it's cheap, it's silent, it has a low power supply requirement and some people simply don't play newer, demanding games.

    For example, I have a friend who plays nothing but WoW and has a crappy, big-brand computer with the stock power supply. For him this video card is perfect, as it's cheap, it's silent and and he can be fairly sure his power supply isn't going to have a problem with it.
  • VooDooAddict - Saturday, September 6, 2008 - link

    You summed it up well.

    There are many people out there who only play World of Warcraft and web games.
  • feelingshorter - Saturday, September 6, 2008 - link

    Strengths? ATI is already in the works to release their 4670, which beats the 9500GT by a very large margin. It was benchmarked on some chinese website. Infact nvidia is already in the works to also release a 9550GT in response.
  • idealego - Saturday, September 6, 2008 - link

    I could have also said "the strengths of this class of video card". I don't care who has the best $70 card--the point is simply that these video cards fill a niche for some people.
  • feelingshorter - Saturday, September 6, 2008 - link

    Unbelievable what nvidia is doing, releasing so many cards. 9400gt/9500gt/9600gt/9600GSO/9800gt/9800GTX. I was looking for a sub 100 video card but i think ill just put out more $ and buy a 4850.
  • tacoburrito - Saturday, September 6, 2008 - link

    I think most of the low end cards are OEMs only. I'm guessing that the machines that churn out these GPUs are not reliable in producing chips capable of the same specs. This could be why Nvidia have to repackage them into a low end and sub-low end. Fuuny thing is that I don't see AMD with the same dilemna with their Radeon HD lineup.

    It is hard to even justify paying $70 for a card when a mere $50 more would net you a sub-high end 9800GT.
  • Clauzii - Friday, September 5, 2008 - link

    Nice article. It -looks- like nVidia need to up their midrange even more, since the prices keep them from doing much at the moment.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now