backtop


Print 31 comment(s) - last by SquidianLoveGo.. on May 12 at 12:20 AM

NVIDIA's unveils its newest $50 entry level DX9 graphics card

NVIDIA today announced its latest entry-level graphics offering, the GeForce 7200 GS. The GeForce 7200 GS delivers Vista Premium Ready graphics performance at a low $50 price point. NVIDIA touts full support for DirectX 9.0, shader model 3.0 and high dynamic-range with the entry-level GeForce 7200 GS.

“Windows Vista, which benefits greatly from additional 3D performance, is gaining market share and mainstream applications such as Microsoft Maps, Google Picasso and iTunes are also starting to take advantage of 3D graphics,” Ujesh Desai, general manager of desktop GPUs, said. “By making a small investment in graphics performance, customers buying Vista PCs can go from an underwhelming experience to one that delivers exceptional performance and features.”

NVIDIA has severely crippled the G72 graphics core compared to its GeForce 7300-series, which uses the same core. The GeForce 7200 GS makes do with half the pipelines as the GeForce 7300 GS. This brings the total pixel pipelines to two, each with one texture unit. NVIDIA claims the GeForce 7200 GS delivers graphics performance that is 50% faster than integrated graphics solution. Strangely, AMD’s 690G integrated graphics chipset features four pixel pipelines, each with one texture unit.

PureVideo video processing is also supported; however, NVIDIA is unclear if the GeForce 7200 GS supports PureVideo HD for high-definition video decoding acceleration.

Add-in board manufacturers are free to equip GeForce 7200 GS graphics cards with 128MB or 256MB of DDR2 memory. NVIDIA recommends 800 MHz for GeForce 7200 GS graphics cards. The DDR2-800 memory attaches to the GPU via a 64-bit memory interface. NVIDIA clocks the GeForce 7200 GS GPU at 450 MHz.

GeForce 7200 GS based graphics cards will be available to OEMs, system builders and retail. NVIDIA add-in board partners with GeForce 7200 GS products include Albatron, ASUS, Biostar, ECS, EVGA, Foxconn, Galazy, Gigabyte, Innovision, Leadtek, MSI, Palit, Point of View, PNY Technology, SPARKLE, XFX, Zogis and Zotac.


Comments     Threshold


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

Jesus
By eek2121 on 5/8/2007 10:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
NVidia keeps leaving itself wide open for an attack from AMD/ATI, but AMD/ATI is sitting on it's ass, still not learning anything from it's current crisis. If they launched the HD 2xxx series of GPUs at a price point that undercuts Nvidia while outperforming them, they could dominate the graphics segment. I guess this is the biggest issue with AMD. Not only are they taking a beating at the hands of intel, but now Nvidia has the fastest graphics card out there and they aren't lifting a finger to compete. Barcelona is always 'down the road' along with the Radeon HD 2xxx graphics chips. I think it's time for another competitor to step up. Too bad IBM isn't interested in the x86 architecture.




RE: Jesus
By Proteusza on 5/9/2007 4:51:20 AM , Rating: 4
Even a lead AMD engineer commented a few years ago that x86 is a load. Cant remember the exact quote.

Anyway, this card is slower than a geforce 2. it may have new features, but it lacks the power to use them.

unfortunately, I think this one will be popular with system builders.

I can see it now:
"Powerful nVidia based graphics card with 128MB of high speed DDR2-1600 Mhz memory. Accelerates all the latest games and Windows Vista for a truly mind blowing experience."


RE: Jesus
By StevoLincolnite on 5/9/2007 5:45:13 AM , Rating: 2
lol I think you have your head in the clouds, I doubt he 7200GS would be slower than a Geforce 2, Think about it, It has much higher core and memory speeds than that of a Geforce 2, Plus other bandwidth saving technologys that Nvidia has implemented like, Ultrashadow 2, Nfinite engine just to mention a couple, And I think the TnL engine is far more advanced also, so do you still think a Geforce 2 outperforms a Geforce 7200 GS? Theres more to graphics cards than just the Pixel pipelines.


RE: Jesus
By Proteusza on 5/9/2007 6:15:20 AM , Rating: 3
450 Mhz x 2 = fill rate of 900. High end geforce 2 cards hit 2000. my old radeon 9200 had a fill rate of 1000.

Yes it will have higher memory bandwidth, but nothing to use that bandwidth. it has pixel shaders, but not enough power to use them.

this is a step back, every bit as much as the geforce 4 mx compared to the geforce 4 ti.


RE: Jesus
By PrinceGaz on 5/9/2007 8:35:16 AM , Rating: 2
This 7200GS will be considerably faster than any GeForce 2 series card.

Yes the GeForce 2 Ultra had 4x2 TMUs clocked at 250MHz so had a theoretical peak texel fillrate of 2000 million/sec, whereas the 7200GS only has 2x1 TMUs clocked at 450MHz so has a peak texel fillrate of only 900 million/sec.

There is more to graphics cards than fillrate however, and the entire GeForce 2 series was extremely memory-bandwidth starved meaning they never achieved anything like their theoretical peak fillrate in real world situations. A good example of this is that the GeForce 4 MX440 (the GeForce 4 MX series being essentially a highly optimied GeForce 2 MX core, especially in the memory-controller) had only 2x2 TMUs clocked at 270MHz giving a peak texel fillrate of 1080 million/sec, yet it generally outperformed the GeForce 2 Ultra which had nearly twice the fillrate and more memory bandwidth (7.4GB/s vs 6.4GB/s).

Now if you were to compare the 7200GS with a GeForce 4 Ti4200 which also has a texel fillrate of 2000 million/sec like the GeForce 2 Ultra (both have 4x2 TMU clocked at 250MHz) but had a much more efficient memory-controller so it wasn't bandwidth starved (it also had slightly more memory-bandwidth than the GF2 Ultra though that is less important), it would probably be a different story as the Ti4200 might well be able to beat the 7200GS in DirectX 7 generation games. In DirectX 8 games using PS1.1, the 7200GS would probably be faster than a Ti4200 however due to the much higher core-clock and superior design of the 7200GS making up for having only half as many shaders. That's my best guess anyway.

The GeForce 4 MX filled a gap in nVidia's range between the very cheap GeForce 2 MX and the much more expensive GeForce 4 Ti. It may not have had pixel-shaders which was a shame but it kept the price down which was the intention, and was very good at what it could do and was quite rightly very successful. The 7200GS is also aimed at a very low price point, probably people who have bought Vista Home Premium and need a graphics-upgrade to use the Aero interface but don't want to spend more than they have to. They don't need a $500 card with 128 shaders clocked as high as possible; a $50 card with 2 PS3.0 shaders and stable drivers will satisfy their Vista requirements fine.


RE: Jesus
By StevoLincolnite on 5/9/2007 8:52:38 AM , Rating: 2
You forget to mention the 7200 GS can accelerate video.
And like I said, the 7200GS employs other technology's to boost performance, until we can get a solid comparison of a 7200GS vs Geforce 2 we might as well say that my orange is an apple.
They are 5 generations apart, one is a direct X 7.0 part while the other is a direct x 9 part, one has a much higher memory speed, and core speed, updated TnL, Nfinite FX engine, Pixel shading, Video Acceleration, Improved Anti-Aliasing, Improved Anisotropic Filtering, Vertex Shading (Which can help allot, the MX 460 had it enabled via software assisted hardware accelerated vertex shading in one of Nvidia's drivers and it improved performance
significantly)
And also your wrong about the fill rate of the 7200GS its actually 1800MT/s while the Geforce 2 Ultra is 2000MT/s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_NVIDIA_...

Stats wise the 7200GS looks like a more beefier version of the 7300SE/7300LE With only half the pixel pipelines of the 7300GS. It maybe just maybe someone may release a softmod, to activate the other 2 pipelines.
And just a quick search on Futuremark 3D mark 2001 even shows a Radeon 9200 (Which employs a 4x1 design) edges out the Geforce 2 Ultra (4x2 design). (note there was about 1k 3D mark deference)
Mind you I cant say what settings and what not they used, but they seemed to be almost identical hardware wise, minus the graphics cards.

If I was to go by your method your "High end Geforce 2" should be able to match my Radeon 9700 Pro mobility graphics card as it only achieved 2046MT/s on 3D mark 2001, And the Geforce 2 Ultra is rated at 2000MT/s, Yet, it would wipe the floor with your Geforce 2 Ultra.


"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki