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 Oobu on 1/4/2008 2:41:37 AM , Rating: 2
I don't agree with everything roadrun777 said, but I do agree that companies shouldn't be able to get away with selling cards like the ATI 9200SE, or the nVidia 5500 cards at places like Wal-Mart with boxes that quite clearly say "High Performance Gaming" on the side. I guess it's all relative to the gamers opinion, but in my opinion, those cards are in no way "high performance gaming" cards and SHOULD NOT be sold off as though they were. Many people don't know the difference, they read the box, buy it, and then go home to be horribly disappointed. You can't expect everyone to know the differences in the cards, or the technical details.

Whether you guys want to agree with him or not, he makes some valid points... even though some of his complaints are pretty ridiculous.

RE: Wha T Evarrrr
By roadrun777 on 1/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Wha T Evarrrr
By rdeegvainl on 1/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Wha T Evarrrr
By Volrath06660 on 1/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Wha T Evarrrr
By Oobu on 1/5/2008 7:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
I was just using those models as an example, I don't know what they sell anymore. The last time I looked, which has been awhile mind you, I remember seeing those 5500's, 9500's, and 9200's. Every single one of them said "High Performance Gaming" and you probably couldn't play any modern games on any of those (or whatever they have now) with decent settings. Even putting your games on the lowest resolution with the quality on very low they would probably still run like a slideshow. Yet they still put "High Performance Gaming" on the box, sad. Not too long ago I saw a PCI card, not AGP, not PCI Express, a PCI video card that said "High Performance Gaming" within the last two years. How many games can even run properly on that? Come on, you may not like what this guy is saying but he's got a point. I don't completely agree with him, but he's got the right idea.

RE: Wha T Evarrrr
By robinthakur on 1/4/2008 6:06:29 AM , Rating: 2
While Roadrunner is indeed a bitter old troll, and should not be encouraged, what I find more amazing is that people buy Crisis, most of them fully knowing that no system, regardless of cost, can run it in high res as it was intended to be played. I also find it odd that the developer released the game before most people had the capability to play it, presumably to claw back some development costs as the profits to be made in the games industry on PC are ever decreasing for all but online sub games.

Most developers do indeed develop for future hardware, but how far in the future is the question!! Do they really think that in two years time or whenever people think a midrange Nvidia card will play this game respectably at medium settings, the publisher will still be marketing Crisis as heavily or it won't have been superceded by something new?

There can be little worse a feeling as you try out your brand new tri SLI quad core system than playing Crisis at this point in time. I'm all for conspicuous consumption, but when you probably have to spend £2500 to play ONE game respectably, something is seriously not right with their economic model and you can understand why console gaming is more pervasive. More than anything, for us the customer, this model is most certainly not in your best interests. The fact that this graphical tour de force
is an otherwise unremarkable game is hard to overlook either.

I think that what he is basically saying is that on medium settings or whatever, all games within maybe 3 years should run at a certain level. That would at least give buyers some confidence in 'investing' in the graphics card market which otherwise is just crazily fast paced at nearly every level apart from the low end which has always remained fairly stable IMO :)

RE: Wha T Evarrrr
By Rockjock51 on 1/4/2008 11:03:33 AM , Rating: 2
Fairly sure this guy is just posting to make people mad at this point.

RE: Wha T Evarrrr
By Volrath06660 on 1/5/2008 10:05:48 AM , Rating: 2
And that is a completely logical standpoint. The only caveat I would add to that is that for a gpu to be viable for the three years, it had to have been purchased from the high end of the gpu spectrum. If you buy some midlevel card, the life expectancy of said card is greatly diminished due to its initial lack of horsepower. I have always picked up high end cards when I build, and with the exception of my first gpu, a Geforce FX5200, they are all still viable, including that old 9800Pro. I can still run Warhammer 40K DOW on mid range settings with a resolution of 1280x1024 and am still pulling down over 30 fps by fraps. So high end cards are worth it if you buy them when they first come out.

And while I do pick up high end cards, I personally see no reason to get the SLI, Crossfire, Quad SLI..etc systems because they do not scale well from the getgo, but also because they are just locking you into a purchase for longer than you really would want. I will be sticking with single gpus until they can get good performance scaling.

RE: Wha T Evarrrr
By Oobu on 1/5/2008 7:31:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have to agree. I tried SLI twice and I just see no point, maybe for bragging rights? Just buy ONE good highend card and call it a day. I think SLI, Crossfire, and anything else is just a gimmick to get your hard earned cash.

"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation
Related Articles

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