Print 110 comment(s) - last by IGoodwin.. on Jan 10 at 5:42 PM

NVIDIA's D9M makes its first appearance on corporate roadmaps

NVIDIA's newest mid-range processor, codenamed D9M, will make its official debut as the GeForce 9600 GT.

Corporate guidance from NVIDIA lists the initial GeForce 9600 GT shipments come stock with a 650 MHz core clock and a 1625 MHz unified shader clock.  Unlike the G84 core found on GeForce 8600 GT, D9M will feature a 256-bit memory bus interface.  Coupled with a 900 MHz memory clock, NVIDIA calculates the memory bandwidth at 57.6 GB/s. 

The texture fill rate is estimated at 20.8 billion pixels per second.  The company would not indicate how many shaders or stream processors reside on the D9M core. 

Late last year, NVIDIA confirmed the D9 family will use TSMC's 65nm process node.  The company introduced its first 65nm processor shrink in November 2007: the G92

Other details of the D9M family have already surfaced.  ChileHardware published slides yesterday claiming the GeForce 9600 requires a 400W power supply that requires 26A on the 12V rail.  Unlike previous mid-range GeForce cards, the D9M will require a 6-pin supplementary power connector.

NVIDIA publicly confirmed other details of D9M: DirectX 10.1 support, Shader Model 4.0, OpenGL 2.1 and PCIe 2.0 support just to name a few. 

Further documentation from NVIDIA claims the 9600 GT will also support the Quantum Effects physics processing engine. 

Like all NVIDIA processors, the GeForce 9600 is also HDCP compatible, though final support still depends on vendor implementation. 

NVIDIA declined to comment on expected price of GeForce 9600.   A representative for NVIDIA would comment that the performance increase between GeForce 9600 and GeForce 8600 is "almost double."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Wha T Evarrrr
By madoka on 1/3/2008 7:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
Tomorrow roadrun777 goes to car forums and demands his 1998 Geo Metro Sport be able to do 0-60 in 3.5 or else there was false advertising and we're all suckers for buying new cars with stagnant technology.

RE: Wha T Evarrrr
By roadrun777 on 1/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Wha T Evarrrr
By mindless1 on 1/4/2008 10:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yes there is an "in between". An occasional gamer who, due to this, doesn't feel like paying for a higher-mid to high end card can still game at 30FPS.

Can they do it on the most demanding new game with high levels of eyecandy? Usually not, but that doesn't mean they can't enjoy many last generation games. You don't HAVE to crank up eyecandy and play above 1280x1024 to enjoy something, and my old 1280x monitor plays plenty of games staying above 30FPS "almost" always with a reused 7600GT video card. For that matter, back when Half Life 2 came out I tried it on an overclocked nForce2 IGP chipset. It ran in DX7 mode and I could see the difference, but I decided to try playing the game on that system and it was fun enough I played through the game again.

Unfortunately there is where many benchmarks fail, in advising customers how the low-mid to higher-midrange cards stack up not at the exact same eyecandy and resolution as the higher end cards but rather, what concessions would need be made to game at that 30FPS minimal mark. Actually a better index would be if it doesn't drop below 20FPS more than 5% of the time and stays above 40FPS on average.

If you want to have it all, just pay more for a different card. It's that simple. nVidia and ATI are going to market such cards to gamers even if they don't meet your standard of gaming because truth be told they can play "some" games, and there would be little point to them without gaming since integrated video will do practiallly all non-gaming, 2D tasks outside of some HD video decoding.

RE: Wha T Evarrrr
By MBlueD on 1/9/2008 5:21:47 AM , Rating: 1
While it does seem that you're a troll on a mission, I think it would be fun to participate :)

My point is that there is no "average" gamer. Either you get fluid motion in a game or you do not.

Another poster mentioned a valid point - 'fluid motion' by itself is an ambiguous term. I can't get 'fluid motion' running Crysis on my 1680x1050 22" LCD on high settings. That is true. But I can get very fluid motion running Pro Evolution Soccer 2008 with all high. Pro Evo also runs with fluid motion on the same LCD on a medium-range card. So if I only care to play Pro Evolution a medium range card is probably going to serve me well, especially considering the price difference relative to a high end card. See? here's a use for midrange cards.
Now to the definition of 'average gamer'. A gamer who only cares to play Pro Evo for example can be described as average gamer. I for example want to play every (good) RPG or FPS that comes out. I don't consider myself an 'average' gamer so when I buy a card, I don't consider midrange unless the price of high end cards is beyond my reach. Average gamers are defined by how much they care about gaming and the quality of their gaming experience. There probably are people willing to play Crysis at all-low settings at a resolution lower than their native LCD resolutions - these are 'average' gamers (or enthusiast gamers without a budget).

It basically means you will get a slide show of the game you thought you were going to play

If you want to buy a card to play a particular game, it is your responsibility to do some research on what CAN run that game. If you go and buy the first box that says 'High performance gaming' and expect it to play your game, it's your problem. As much as I do hate marketing terms, it's not their responsibility if you 'mis-interpret' their claims; I'm pretty sure thay can find an old game where their card will run at very high fps. They will call that 'high performance gaming' and prove their claim true. Even if they claimed you could play Crysis at high frame rates, once challenged, they would run it on (e.g.) 640x480 with all settings lowest possible.

My point is not to defend marketing claims - it's just that it's our responsibility as consumers to do our homework.

My solution is to implement "minimum experience ratings" which where suggested many years ago as a way to gauge a card's performance. I still think that is the way to go.

That'd be great!

And I do think cars are stagnant, I mean combustion engines? come on... The technology is so old that the paper the patent was written on turned to dust already if that helps your small monkey mind.

Innovation is not something that comes when one wants it. When Innovation comes, it comes. Also, please not that car manufacturers (and graphic card manufacturers) are not research companies - they are business companies, and thus business (profit) is top of the their list. You can't demand innovation from someone - unless you are rich enough to fund an RnD operation for the development of an alternative technology for something you are tired with, and even then you have a significant risk of spending ALL your money and still coming out with nothing useful.
A technology does not only need to pay for itself - it also needs to pay for failed attempts. Again, these companies are there to make a profit for themselves first and foremost.

I do think Graphic Cards changed greatly in the last five years. Please take into consideration that the absence of 'visible' innovations doesn't mean no innovations happened at all. You make it sound like you really expected a jump to quantum processing technology for the GPUs, and perhaps anti-gravity for air and land craft, all in 5 years!

RE: Wha T Evarrrr
By IGoodwin on 1/10/2008 5:42:54 PM , Rating: 1
To determine that something is false, you have to have a statement, and conditions against which to measure it. This linguistic gymnastics is something better left to advertisments, or lawyers.

Certainly, to use the car analogy, A 1998 Geo Metro Sport can do 0-60 in under 3.5 seconds! If I found a cliff high enough it could do the quater mile pretty quickly too.

Conversly, placing four heavy people in the car would slow it, making in any performance claim false, unless the correct conditions are applied, and the appropriate professional driver employed.

Therefore, claiming aminimum specification, like 30fps, is pointless, as it cannot be guarenteed by the performance of the graphics card alone. The processor, motherboad, memory, and the display all alter the dynamic, not to mention the operating system, drivers, and the game itself.

The graphics cards do mention there performance in terms that cannot be affected by external properties, and in that way, they are not producing flase advertising; where, claiming 30 fps in all games would be false.

"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki