GTS 240 just popped up under Nvidia's OEM only section. Yes, it's just a renamed 9800 GT. 
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gts_240_us.html
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gts_240_us.html
ELSA hints GT206 and GT212
- Thread starter AnarchX
- Start date
Not quite. It's old chip but it's not only rename. It's got beefed up clocks - +12% core (675 instead of 600 Mhz), +8% shader (1620 vs 1500 Mhz), +22% memory (1100 vs 900 Mhz). In fact that's almost exactly (except shader clock) the clocks of 9800GTX. Should be faster than 9800GT and I guess might even beat an old 8800GTS. Still, that chip is getting oldGTS 240 just popped up under Nvidia's OEM only section. Yes, it's just a renamed 9800 GT.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gts_240_us.html
.Oh and btw is this a new board layout?
Apologies to the Expreview people! Looks like they were right with the GT230 name.
Is sort of a bit messy, nvidia kindof needs one more prefix ie:
G210 GT218
GT220 GT216
GT230 GT215
GTS240 G92
GTS250 G92
The G92 has taken 2 spots, and forced the GT215 and GT216 to share a prefix. Also makes it a bit messy for speed/unit count/memory type variations as will now need to use the last digit extensively or limit the variations available. ie DDR3 and GDDR5 versions of GT215 which would likely have quite a performance delta can only really be separated by the last digit.
Figure they were trying to get a GDDR5 version up within sight of the 9800gt performance but couldnt get there, so had to bring in the hardened veteran back off of the bench....
(...or possibly they had huge stocks of 9800gt and needed few months longer to clear)
Figure they were trying to get a GDDR5 version up within sight of the 9800gt performance but couldnt get there, so had to bring in the hardened veteran back off of the bench....
(...or possibly they had huge stocks of 9800gt and needed few months longer to clear)
Well, I think if you accept that nvidia wants to ship GTS250 for a while longer, it makes perfect sense that there's also a GTS240. Presumably there are still parts with defects which otherwise nvidia couldn't sell (or had to sell as the "older" 9800GT). The higher clocks also make perfect sense (I bet any g92b can reach that easily, plus there's no danger of hurting sales of original 9800GTX any more), though higher memory clock might potentially drive up price a bit (but maybe not, I don't think those 1.1Ghz are actually higher binned quality, last time I checked everything over 1.0Ghz was still overvolted, plus now there's 1.3Ghz gddr3 parts available so it's no longer the premium part).
Also rumours for GT215 still vary wildly, so it's totally unclear how close to G92 in performance it could be even in the top configuration. I guess with 96 shaders it could get very close, but anything less and I'm sceptical...
The thing is that G92b has some pretty wicked clocks right now - 740 core, 1840 shader. A 96 shader part with only 32 TMUs would probably have a pretty tough time catching up even with GT2xxs enhancements. They were probably looking at GT214 as a true G92 replacement.
Last time from what I heard that all GT21X series are for low-end.
To compete RV870XT , 2 X G92 on the Level of performance is required.
Some GT216 shots and benchmarks have turned up at IT168:
http://publish.it168.com/2009/0807/20090807051201.shtml
Core shot directly linked here
...competitive with RV730, quite a bit above the 9500.
Two configs:
GT220: 48sp 625/1360/1600mhz DDR3 either 512mb or 1024mb
or
GT215: DDR2 memory (clocks and shaders not listed)
In tests they compare to a RV730, and also a G210 at 589/1402/1000mhz
From the nvidia slide, GT220 comes in 50W and 75W versions(guessing this is for the different memory levels).
(Please note in the above the GT215 is not the GT215 we have come to know and love, instead is a nvidia retail name for the lower clocked GT216)
http://publish.it168.com/2009/0807/20090807051201.shtml
Core shot directly linked here
...competitive with RV730, quite a bit above the 9500.
Two configs:
GT220: 48sp 625/1360/1600mhz DDR3 either 512mb or 1024mb
or
GT215: DDR2 memory (clocks and shaders not listed)
In tests they compare to a RV730, and also a G210 at 589/1402/1000mhz
From the nvidia slide, GT220 comes in 50W and 75W versions(guessing this is for the different memory levels).
(Please note in the above the GT215 is not the GT215 we have come to know and love, instead is a nvidia retail name for the lower clocked GT216)
That is a bandwidth choked HD 4670 configuration they have chosen there.
Looking at the other cardx in that test that appears to be the effective rate, in other words the HD 4670 is 500Mhz on the memory. Look at The Vantage scores for HD 4670 on its release memory clocks and you'll see the scores are significantly higher than tested here.
I tried to complete the list of "GeForce 100/200" graphics cards:
G92b -> GeForce GTS240 (112SPs, 256bit GDDR3, 675/1620/2200), 55nm, DX10 (GF8800GT/GF9800GT/GTS240 OEM)
G92b -> GeGorce GTS150 (128SPs, 256bit GDDR3, 740/1835/2000), 55nm, DX10 (GF8800-512/GF9800GTX/GF9800GTX+/GTS250)
G92b -> GeForce GTS250 (128SPs, 256bit GDDR3, 740/1835/2200), 55nm, DX10 (GF8800-512/GF9800GTX/GF9800GTX+/GTS250)
G94 -> GeForce GT130 (48SPs, 192bit DDR2, 500/1250/1000) 55-65nm, DX10 (crippled 94-based 9600GSO-512)
G98 -> GeForce G100 (8SPs, 64bit DDR2, 565/1400/1000) 55-65nm, DX10 (crippled GF9400GS)
G96 -> GeForce GT120 (32SPs, 128bit DDR2, 500/1400/1000) 55-65nm, DX10 (GF9400GT)
GT200 -> GeForce GTX260 (192SPs, 448bit GDDR3, 575/1240/2000), 65nm, DX10
GT200 -> GeForce GTX260-216 (216SPs, 448bit GDDR3, 575/1240/2000), 65nm, DX10
GT200 -> GeForce GTX280 (240SPs, 512bit GDDR3, 600/1300/2200), 65nm, DX10
GT200b -> GeForce GTX275 (240SPs, 448bit GDDR3, 635/1405/2000), 55nm, DX10
GT200b -> GeForce GTX285 (240SPs, 512bit GDDR3, 650/1475/2280), 55nm, DX10
GT206 -> ??? canceled?, 40nm, DX10.1
GT212 -> ??? (240SPs, 256bit GDDR5, ???), 40nm, DX10.1 - canceled?
GT214 -> on the way, details unavailable, sources: Fudzilla, Electronista
GT215 -> on the way, GeForce GT230 (64-96SPs, 128bit (G)DDR3/5, ???), 40nm, DX10.1 (shrinked G92?)
GT216 -> GeForce GT220 (48SPs, 128bit DDR3, 615/1335/1580), 40nm, DX10.1 shrinked G94?)
GT218 -> GeForce G210 (16SPs, 64bit DDR2, 590/1400/1000), 40nm DX10.1 (shrinked G96/9400GT)
Many articles states, that GT130 is renamed 8800GS/9600GSO (G92). That's not true, GT130 doesn't have 96SPs, only 48. It's based on G94 - it's G94 based 9600GSO-512 with narrower memory bus.
G92b -> GeForce GTS240 (112SPs, 256bit GDDR3, 675/1620/2200), 55nm, DX10 (GF8800GT/GF9800GT/GTS240 OEM)
G92b -> GeGorce GTS150 (128SPs, 256bit GDDR3, 740/1835/2000), 55nm, DX10 (GF8800-512/GF9800GTX/GF9800GTX+/GTS250)
G92b -> GeForce GTS250 (128SPs, 256bit GDDR3, 740/1835/2200), 55nm, DX10 (GF8800-512/GF9800GTX/GF9800GTX+/GTS250)
G94 -> GeForce GT130 (48SPs, 192bit DDR2, 500/1250/1000) 55-65nm, DX10 (crippled 94-based 9600GSO-512)
G98 -> GeForce G100 (8SPs, 64bit DDR2, 565/1400/1000) 55-65nm, DX10 (crippled GF9400GS)
G96 -> GeForce GT120 (32SPs, 128bit DDR2, 500/1400/1000) 55-65nm, DX10 (GF9400GT)
GT200 -> GeForce GTX260 (192SPs, 448bit GDDR3, 575/1240/2000), 65nm, DX10
GT200 -> GeForce GTX260-216 (216SPs, 448bit GDDR3, 575/1240/2000), 65nm, DX10
GT200 -> GeForce GTX280 (240SPs, 512bit GDDR3, 600/1300/2200), 65nm, DX10
GT200b -> GeForce GTX275 (240SPs, 448bit GDDR3, 635/1405/2000), 55nm, DX10
GT200b -> GeForce GTX285 (240SPs, 512bit GDDR3, 650/1475/2280), 55nm, DX10
GT206 -> ??? canceled?, 40nm, DX10.1
GT212 -> ??? (240SPs, 256bit GDDR5, ???), 40nm, DX10.1 - canceled?
GT214 -> on the way, details unavailable, sources: Fudzilla, Electronista
GT215 -> on the way, GeForce GT230 (64-96SPs, 128bit (G)DDR3/5, ???), 40nm, DX10.1 (shrinked G92?)
GT216 -> GeForce GT220 (48SPs, 128bit DDR3, 615/1335/1580), 40nm, DX10.1 shrinked G94?)
GT218 -> GeForce G210 (16SPs, 64bit DDR2, 590/1400/1000), 40nm DX10.1 (shrinked G96/9400GT)
Many articles states, that GT130 is renamed 8800GS/9600GSO (G92). That's not true, GT130 doesn't have 96SPs, only 48. It's based on G94 - it's G94 based 9600GSO-512 with narrower memory bus.
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems you're right. Seems like that GT220 is in fact, not quite competitive with a real HD4670 (be it the 1Ghz GDDR3 or 873Mhz DDR3 version). I think though that's a pretty sleazy HD4670, and I still don't quite understand why AMD allows its partners to do such stunts (it might have chip clock like a HD4670 but nevertheless will perform almost exactly like a HD4650 - in fact there exist HD4650 with gddr3 memory which will be a lot faster than this so-called HD4670 with gddr2 or whatever memory).
where did you see that? I tried to look up some scores for the 9500GT and it seems pretty much dead even in performance (though, comparing to the 9500GT GDDR3 version not the much slower ddr2 version). That's a bit disappointing imho, though if it actually sells with ddr3 ram it is indeed quite an improvement (reviews of 9500GT may use gddr3 ram but what you'll find on shelves is typically the ddr2 version...).rjc said:
Am pretty sure the GT214 and GT215 are very closely related in functionality ie variations....apparently are trying to get going a UMC as well as TSMC also GT214 might only have had a 192bit interface GDDR3/DDR3 only, not 100%. Really would not expect the GT214 at all now, GT215 will be available in a few months and will sell to say roughly middle of next year when the GT30X parts should arrive.
The 9600GSO was originally a cut down G92(192bit) that started life as the 8800GS and was renamed to fit into the 9 series....nvidia i guess with better yields on the G92 abandoned this part and decided cut down and rename the 9600GT/G94 with the same name to replace the original renamed part. It was quite a bit less performance than the original 9600GSO.
Sorry, was reading too fast, is the GT130 not about the 9600GSO - the GT130 is G94 only i think.....everytime i see the 9600GSO i cant seem to stop myself trying to fit "rename" into a sentence as many times as possible
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh sorry, took the article at face value, they said in chinese:
Translated as usual roughly:
"Geforce GT220 isn't so simple, in performance greatly exceed Geforce 9500GT"
With all these cards the margins are so tight the incentive to "cheat" by substituting memory is overwhelming. The only hope currently have is the price of DDR3 continues its downward march and gets close soon to the currently rising DDR2 so that there is no $ incentive to use the older memory.
I don't know what all the partners are doing with HD 4600, but I'd like to know what board was in that test. Looking at Newegg the minimum speeds for HD 4670 available there at the moment appear to 800MHz (there was one badly labelled Sapphire board, but referencing against their site indicates is actuall >1600Mbps data rate), while 500Mhz is on the HD 4650.
I wasn't able to find a HD4670 with 500Mhz ram neither - found some references with HD4670 and gddr2 ram but these all seemed to be misprints. Must be some version only found in China.
