ELSA hints GT206 and GT212

[Jawed]

Is that a "week 32 of 2008" manufacturing date? 13 months ago?

Jawed

 

[no-X]

Maybe they used the GT230 / 192bit board to clean old stock of GPUs which have broken memory controller and/or block of ROPs.

 

[Jawed]

Geforce GT220 to launch October 12

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15881/34/

 

[Blazkowicz]

gigabyte will launch a GT220, with dual slot cooler, 1GB of DDR3 and nice clocks.
It looks like an excellent solution for some needs, couple it with an athlon X4 605e and you get very high perf/watt for very cheap.

the only problem is competition from above. here's a 9800GT green selling for really cheap
http://www.grosbill.com/4-gainward_9800gt_512_green_0568_-94861-informatique-nvidia

 

[Tchock]

GT240 // GTS 260 M (same specs almost exact clocks).

http://image3.it168.com//2009/10/9/ad383fa4-8409-4bee-b141-cd1bfabe8073.jpg
http://image3.it168.com//2009/10/9/a2fa0a36-6dda-4de2-9041-46497fdb9fa9.jpg

 

[trinibwoy]

Are those numbers legit? Seems strange that it would beat a 250 in Vantage with lower theoretical numbers in everything, especially after being beaten by the same card rather soundly in 3dmark06.

 

[Arty]

Are those numbers legit? Seems strange that it would beat a 250 in Vantage with lower theoretical numbers in everything, especially after being beaten by the same card rather soundly in 3dmark06.

That is the OC number you are looking at. It is still slower than the 250, even the GDDR5 version.

Is this supposed to go up against the 5700? Doesnt bode well ..

 

[no-X]

It seems it will be slower than HD4770 (which is 2-3% slower than HD4850 in Vantage) and slightly faster than HD4830 (15-18% slower than HD4850).

 

[trinibwoy]

That is the OC number you are looking at. It is still slower than the 250, even the GDDR5 version.

I know, it was the OC I was comparing. Even overclocked it has lower theoretical specs than the 250 and the 250 beats the OC soundly in 3dmark06.

 

[AnarchX]

Probably only 8 ROPs and not 8 per 64-bit MC like Fermi.

 

[elsence]

Geforce G210 review:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...dias-first-DirectX-101-card-reviewed/Reviews/


Geforce G220 review:

http://publish.it168.com/2009/0901/20090901012701.shtml


Geforce G240 preview:

http://vga.it168.com/a2009/1009/754/000000754803.shtml

General info/photos

http://www.mymypc.com/images/vga/mymypc-nvidia-gt210-gt220.gif

http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=30077&catid=2

EDIT*

Tomshardware, Pcper and hardwarezone review: (links from: http://www.elitebastards.com)

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=794

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=3&id=3035

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/geforce-gt-220,review-31703.html

 

[AnarchX]

D3D10.1 seems buggy:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gt-220,2445-13.html

 

[Jawed]

Yay, we finally know the TMU and ROP counts: 16,8 for GT216 and 8,4 for GT218.

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/10/11/nvida-launches-uncompetitive-g210-and-gt220/

Jawed

 

[mczak]

Compared against 9500GT GT220 isn't too bad. Lower power draw, higher performance, better feature set. But, chip complexity of GT216 seems to be somewhat similar to rv730, and it doesn't look too good against HD4670/4650, though at least it manages to have a somewhat lower power draw (at load - looks very similar at idle), no doubt due to 40nm manufacturing.
At suggested pricing, it's pretty bad, and it seems nvidia just hopes noone will notice GT220 isn't competitive with HD46xx, hence the silent launch.

G210 is small and low-power though again not impressive against rv710. Might not matter much though as performance isn't really a very important metric for this class of gpus.

GT240 is somewhat interesting - first nvidia product with (128bit) gddr5. Performance around that of 9800GT, with presumably lower power draw. However, quite a bit slower than the fastest cards based on good old g92b (gts250), and if pricing of GT220 is any indication, it won't really be cheaper than gts250 neither. That means it will have to fight against hd5750 likely, and that one is going to be a very very one-sided battle... I wonder what the die size of gt215 is, I suspect it could be quite similar to juniper.

 

[elsence]

It seems that the GT 240 will be 16ROPs and 32 TUs.

The 550MHz is very low clock for a 40nm part and based on what Nvidia could achieve with G 210 & GT 220.

I guess the design is extremely bandwidth limited with plain DDR3 (900MHz, 128bit bus) so there was no reason for an increase in core clock?

Or NV wanted also the DDR3 part to be within the PCI-Express power spec (75W)?

The performance in games of the 550MHz DDR3 part should be around 750MHz/1GHz 4670 512MB perf. or around 550MHz/800MHz G92 9600GSO/8800GS 768MB perf.

And the performance in games of the 650MHz GDDR5 part should be around 600MHz/900MHz 9800GT 512MB perf. or even around an overclocked 9800GT perf.

I hope Nvidia not to price them with the same G 210/GT220 pricing logic (The Way It's Meant To Be Priced (TWIMTBP), lol)

 

[Groo The Wanderer]

Or it is just too little too late. The price is waterfalled down the stack, and the real competition hasn't arrived yet. The only way that these parts will ever be competitive is if Nvidia massively subsidizes them to OEM like I have been saying. The same is true for all parts above it also, starting in a few hours......

Nvidia has no competitive parts at all right now. Zero. Their die size make it impossible to compete.

-Charlie

 

[DegustatoR]

Their die size make it impossible to compete.

Their die size on GT21x is much less than that of AMD's value GPUs at the same price points now. (Not that it really matters because die size alone means nothing but still.) And from the looks of it Cedar and Redwood might end up being bigger than GT21xs on the same process with the same performance.

 

[AnarchX]

It seems that the GT 240 will be 16ROPs and 32 TUs.

It seem to be only 8 ROPs, else it would not be slower than 9600 GT.

Their die size on GT21x is much less than that of AMD's value GPUs at the same price points now. (Not that it really matters because die size alone means nothing but still.) .

With 55nm wafers @ ~80% costs of 40nm ones and probably higher yields on 55n, I see no real advantage for:
GT216 100mm² vs RV730 140mm²
GT218 57mm² vs RV710 71mm²
(GT215s (~125mm²) die-size competitor is clearly RV740(

And from the looks of it Cedar and Redwood might end up being bigger than GT21xs on the same process with the same performance.

According to Anandtech Juniper is 166mm², so Redwood @~100mm² could be a 400SPs part and Cedar migth have the chance to be a bit faster than RV710 while be in GT218s range.

 

[chavvdarrr]

Their die size on GT21x is much less than that of AMD's value GPUs at the same price points now. (Not that it really matters because die size alone means nothing but still.) And from the looks of it Cedar and Redwood might end up being bigger than GT21xs on the same process with the same performance.

Funny.
Few years ago someone was claiming that altho ATi has low and mid cards on smaller chips and process, still NV can compete because of using proven less expensive process.

 

[neliz]

And from the looks of it Cedar and Redwood might end up being bigger than GT21xs on the same process with the same performance.

RV810(at least 120SP) is going to be faster than RV710 (80SP), which is already 10-20% faster than GT218. So from that perspective you're getting GT216 performance for a GT218 price.