Stuck with Nvidia.

[Deadtrees]

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/511974?tstart=-1
http://aeportal.blogspot.com/2...cuda-acceleration.html

If what's said above is true (I believe that's the case), I guess I'm stuck with Nvidia cards. Well, it's not that I game much but I guess I'll have to give up the ritual of playing all those games whenever I get new system.

Anyway, I'm having hard time deciding which Nvidia cards to get. Due to their renaming scheme and my not following what's what, I'm totally lost.

Before anything, here's what I have in mind.
I want a card that's cheap, low profile, and low noise video card that doesn't make terrible trade-off for performance.

At first, I was thinking about 250 series but its being 65nm pushed me back. So far, only 220 series is based on 40nm technology but I fear it'd be too damn slow. 240 series looks good but it's not even out yet and I'm to order the whole setup within a few days.

So, here I am wondering what I should buy. It'd be perfect if I can find a chart that compares 220 to most of other nVidia cards. If 220's power consumption is considerably low compared to 250 and whatnot, I'm willing to get it just for that.

Any suggestions?

 

[Qbah]

If my memory serves me right...

GTS240 = 9800GT = 8800GT

However, the GTS240 is meant for the OEM market (again, AFAIK), so I think you'll be hard pressed to find any of them available for purchase without a whole computer. There are a few low profile 9800GTs though, I'm pretty sure that's the fastest low-profile card you can get. So you might want to look for one.

The 220/210 series are a joke for gaming (the fastest one has 48 SPs, the GTS240 has 112 - do the math ). They're great cards for anything but this kind of entertainment - movies, browsing and general every-day usage. Gaming cards - no

EDIT:
GT220 - 48SP (aka "new" 9600GSO - there are "old" ones with 96SP)
GT210 - 16SP (aka 9400GT)

If you want to do any gaming, just pretend those two don't exist

 

[Deadtrees]

Thanks for the great summary.

I guess I'll pass 220 though it's 40nm card that I was looking for. Again, gaming isn't my priority but I'd like to have that freedom to play one whenever I feel like it. Based on what you've said, 220 wouldn't even let me have that, I figure.
So, what options do I have now? How is 9800GT compared to GTS 250?

 

[thilanliyan]

Isn't the GTS250 equal to the 8800GT? Not the GTS240?

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: thilanliyan
Isn't the GTS250 equal to the 8800GT? Not the GTS240?

The GTS250 is a 9800GTX+, The 1GB model is always a 55nm part, the 512MB model can still be the 65nm version. Most of them are 55nm though.

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
Thanks for the great summary.

I guess I'll pass 220 though it's 40nm card that I was looking for. Again, gaming isn't my priority but I'd like to have that freedom to play one whenever I feel like it. Based on what you've said, 220 wouldn't even let me have that, I figure.
So, what options do I have now? How is 9800GT compared to GTS 250?

The GTS250 is faster than a 9800GT. Just check some 9800GTX+ reviews, most of them have a 8800GT/9800GT card included.

GTS250 = 9800GTX+
GTS240 = 9800GT

EDIT: Added links to nVidia specification pages. The GTS240 has a bit higher clocks than a 9800GT. And that's it Should be within a frame or two from each other I guess.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Qbah

Originally posted by: thilanliyan
Isn't the GTS250 equal to the 8800GT? Not the GTS240?

The GTS250 is a 9800GTX+, The 1GB model is always a 55nm part, the 512MB model can still be the 65nm version. Most of them are 55nm though.

thats not correct. no gts250 or 9800gtx+ is 65nm. a 9800gtx+ is a higher clocked 55nm version of the 65nm 9800gtx. the gts250 1gb is a 9800gtx+ with a more efficient shorter pcb. some gts250 512mb cards are literally just re badged 9800gtx+ cards but some go with the newer reference gts250 pcb too. ALL 9800gtx+ and gts250 cards are 55nm regardless of whether they are 512mb or 1gb.

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Qbah

Originally posted by: thilanliyan
Isn't the GTS250 equal to the 8800GT? Not the GTS240?

The GTS250 is a 9800GTX+, The 1GB model is always a 55nm part, the 512MB model can still be the 65nm version. Most of them are 55nm though.

thats not correct. no gts250 or 9800gtx+ is 65nm. a 9800gtx+ is a higher clocked 55nm version of the 65nm 9800gtx. the gts250 1gb is a 9800gtx+ with a more efficient pcb. some gts250 512mb cards are actually just re badged 9800gtx+ cards but some go with the newer reference gts250 pcb too. ALL 9800gtx+ and gts250 cards are 55nm regardless of whether they are 512mb or 1gb.

Not really a reputable site, but there you go. Plenty of topics on the Web saying some of the first 9800GTX+ cards were actually 65nm versions OCed to GTX+ speeds.

As for the GTS250, looks like you're right. All GTS250 are 55nm.

EDIT: Actually, there were GTS250 models with 512MB RAM that had 2 PCIe power plugs. Those were 65nm parts IMO. The 1GB models had only one PCIe plug. As for the 65nm, it's just my guess, couldn't find any solid data to back it up. So think of it what you wish

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Qbah

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Qbah

Originally posted by: thilanliyan
Isn't the GTS250 equal to the 8800GT? Not the GTS240?

The GTS250 is a 9800GTX+, The 1GB model is always a 55nm part, the 512MB model can still be the 65nm version. Most of them are 55nm though.

thats not correct. no gts250 or 9800gtx+ is 65nm. a 9800gtx+ is a higher clocked 55nm version of the 65nm 9800gtx. the gts250 1gb is a 9800gtx+ with a more efficient pcb. some gts250 512mb cards are actually just re badged 9800gtx+ cards but some go with the newer reference gts250 pcb too. ALL 9800gtx+ and gts250 cards are 55nm regardless of whether they are 512mb or 1gb.

Not really a reputable site, but there you go. Plenty of topics on the Web saying the first 9800GTX+ cards were actually 65nm versions OCed to GTX+ speeds.

As for the GTS250, looks like you're right. All GTS250 are 55nm.

isnt that just some random guy on yahoo answers? anyway, the "+" in 9800gtx+ denotes 55nm so its a safe bet its not 65nm.

 

[Deadtrees]

http://www.directcanada.com/products/?sku=23310BD7969
http://www.directcanada.com/pr...12MD3&manufacture=ASUS

Finally, I'm down to 2 cards. One is gts 250 and the other one is 9600GT.
At this point, I only need to know about one thing and I'll be set. It's the noise level.
For sure, 250 performs much better than 9600GT but I fear it might be too loud. How loud is too loud? If I can hear it over my 135mm PSU+ 120mm CPU fan, that'd be too damn loud. When the 120mm CPU fan hits +1000rpm, I find it too loud.

Does anyone know how loud 250 cards are usually?

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: toyota
isnt that just some random guy on yahoo answers? anyway, the "+" in 9800gtx+ denotes 55nm so its a safe bet its not 65nm.

Looked a bit more and it looks this way. All '+' and GTS250 are 55nm cards. Doesn't change the fact that both the 9800GTX+ and GTX250 perform the same and are faster than a GTS240. And that the GTS240 is a bit faster than a 9800GT. Something the OP was interested in Shouldn't have really mentioned that in the first place as it's kinda irrelevant here.

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
http://www.directcanada.com/products/?sku=23310BD7969
http://www.directcanada.com/pr...12MD3&manufacture=ASUS

Finally, I'm down to 2 cards. One is gts 250 and the other one is 9600GT.
At this point, I only need to know about one thing and I'll be set. It's the noise level.
For sure, 250 performs much better than 9600GT but I fear it might be too loud. How loud is too loud? If I can hear it over my 135mm PSU+ 120mm CPU fan, that'd be too damn loud. When the 120mm CPU fan hits +1000rpm, I find it too loud.

Does anyone know how loud 250 cards are usually?

Sorry, can't help you with the noise. I'm running my lowly card passive and have Nexus fans at low RPM running inside my case. Most things for me are too noisy If you're concerned with noise, perhaps get an Accelero S1 rev2 and a Nexus/Noctua fan with the GTS250 card and manually change the cooler? You will loose warranty though.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

The 220 should have a considerably low power consumption when compared to the 250.

Qbah is right. The GTS 250 is basically the same as the 9800GTX+. The 240 is exactly the same as the 9800GT, which is exactly the same as the 8800GT. It's power consumption should be a bit below the 250, but more than the 220.

 

[SlowSpyder]

When you're looking at GT220 or GTS250's, it doesn't matter too much which company you go with. Both make very decent parts at that performance level, really whoever is cheaper is going to usually be the determing factor... except when there is a 'must have' feature/ability as you do in this case.

 

[T2k]

That entire linked topic is a joke., seriously - and you are crazy if you go by some hearsay on some forum, written by a guy who writes like Rain Man...

 

[Dribble]

Originally posted by: T2k
I am an ati fanboy - I have no solution using ati cards to suggest to the op so I'll just resort to childish insults instead.

Re-quoted for truth. You are getting as bad as Wreckage.

 

[BenSkywalker]

That entire linked topic is a joke., seriously - and you are crazy if you go by some hearsay on some forum, written by a guy who writes like Rain Man...

But there appears to be a very effective solution on the horizon, a solution that is most likely more effective than anything else we have seen before and in our experience using Photoshop over the past 14 years. During a demonstration at Nvidia?s headquarters in Santa Clara, we got a glimpse of Adobe?s "Creative Suite Next" (or CS4), code-named ?Stonehenge?, which adds GPU and physics support to its existing multi-core support.

Link.

OP, if you can why not hold out for Fermi? Obviously it will be better at gaming then the current solutions, but the much bigger impact is going to be on GPGPU performance which it seems is what you are mainly looking for. Fermi should be an absolute beast GPGPU wise, significantly faster then the G92 based parts.

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

That entire linked topic is a joke., seriously - and you are crazy if you go by some hearsay on some forum, written by a guy who writes like Rain Man...

But there appears to be a very effective solution on the horizon, a solution that is most likely more effective than anything else we have seen before and in our experience using Photoshop over the past 14 years. During a demonstration at Nvidia?s headquarters in Santa Clara, we got a glimpse of Adobe?s "Creative Suite Next" (or CS4), code-named ?Stonehenge?, which adds GPU and physics support to its existing multi-core support.

Link.

OP, if you can why not hold out for Fermi? Obviously it will be better at gaming then the current solutions, but the much bigger impact is going to be on GPGPU performance which it seems is what you are mainly looking for. Fermi should be an absolute beast GPGPU wise, significantly faster then the G92 based parts.

The OP is thinking about a GTS250 or a 9600GT... Those are $100 or less. How will Fermi help him? We have no pricing information (hell, no hardware information either) but if it will perform comparable to a HD5870 it will probably cost at least as much (given the emphasis nVidia puts on GPGPU) - so 350$ and up. Not to mention in his first post he was asking for a low-profile card...

 

[BenSkywalker]

The OP is thinking about a GTS250 or a 9600GT... Those are $100 or less. How will Fermi help him? We have no pricing information (hell, no hardware information either) but if it will perform comparable to a HD5870 it will probably cost at least as much (given the emphasis nVidia puts on GPGPU) - so 350$ and up. Not to mention in his first post he was asking for a low-profile card...

Fermi isn't going to be just one card that is faster then the 5870, nV dropping the entire GTX line has told us that quite clearly.

 

[Keysplayr]

I would try to consider a passive 9800GT. It's certainly more powerful than a 9600GT for when you wish to game.

 

[Deadtrees]

I decided to go with EVGA E-GEFORCE GTS 250 738MHZ 1024MB 2.2GHZ but I'm not sure even at this point.

Still, I doubt if I should go for 5750 for it's as fast as GTS 250 plus 40nm and Directx 11. It'd be easy only if I could get a clear confirmation on the future of CUDA. I know CUDA is more of hype than reality for now but many suggest it'll be the real thing in the very near future. But then again, that's what's been told years and year ago.

It's not only me who are damn confused. I spent hours and hours trying to find out what CUDA holds but nobody is sure. Some say CS5 will support CUDA and it seems to be the case but nobody is clear on how important it'd be. Will it provide some minor improvement only in certain situations to the point of being meaningless? Is it really CUDA or just opgnGL as in CS4?

One thing I'm damn sure is that nvidia is doing a great job on marketing. It's amazing how majority of people think CS4 is CUDA accelerated when it's only openGL. It's amazing how CUDA hype is huge among those who are in the video editing scenes.


"OP, if you can why not hold out for Fermi? Obviously it will be better at gaming then the current solutions, but the much bigger impact is going to be on GPGPU performance which it seems is what you are mainly looking for. Fermi should be an absolute beast GPGPU wise, significantly faster then the G92 based parts"

I like the direction Fermi is taking but I need something right now and lack of information worries me a bit. Even if Fermi comes out as promised, I think it'll take some time for it to be utilized. Worst of all, I fear Fermi might be GPU verion of Pentium 4 given its massive size.

 

[Martimus]

CUDA? It is just a programming language that allows you to run apps on the GPU instead of the CPU. AMD has a similar language, but it isn't as well supported. I'm not sure what you want to write for your GPU to run, but it isn't quite as easy as writing for an X86 style processor.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
I want a card that's cheap, low profile, and low noise video card that doesn't make terrible trade-off for performance.
...
I decided to go with EVGA E-GEFORCE GTS 250 738MHZ 1024MB 2.2GHZ

GTS 250 is not low profile.

Originally posted by: Qbah
Plenty of topics on the Web saying some of the first 9800GTX+ cards were actually 65nm versions OCed to GTX+ speeds.

GTS 250 and 9800 GTX+ were all supposed to be 55nm.

IIRC EVGA sold some 9800 GTX+ using 65nm GPUs. Someone actually took off their fansink to look at the part number, and then phoned EVGA support and got confirmation. This was just some random forum post I read, so take it with a grain of salt.

GPU-Z is unable to determine 65nm/55nm and earlier versions said all 9800 GTX+ were 65nm regardless. This is fact.

Originally posted by: Qbah
GT220 - 48SP (aka "new" 9600GSO - there are "old" ones with 96SP)
GT210 - 16SP (aka 9400GT)

If you want to do any gaming, just pretend those two don't exist

The GeForce 210 (no "T" in it ) is pretty piss poor for gaming, but the GT 220 can actually play stuff if you don't have high expectiations. (nevermind, we're in an enthusiast forum.)

Some 9400 GT used a 128-bit memory interface. For instance, 1GB 9400 GT all used a 128-bit memory interface. BFG's 512MB card also used a 128-bit memory interface. Those cards will outperform the GeForce 210 because the 210 is only available with a 64-bit memory interface. The GT 220 can be made with DDR2 and DDR3. Here are some synthetic performance numbers with a few other cards thrown in:

GeForce 210, 16 shader cores, 64-bit DDR2
589MHz core, 1402MHz shader, 800MHz memory data rate
3DMark03 8437
3DMark05 5714
3DMark06 2572

GeForce 9400 GT, 16 shader cores, 128-bit DDR2
550MHz core, 1400MHz shaders, 800MHz memory data rate
3DMark03 10827
3DMark05 7061
3DMark06 3304

GeForce 9500 GT, 32 shader cores, 128-bit DDR2
575MHz core, 1450MHz shaders, 800MHz memory data rate
3DMark03 13971
3DMark05 9054
3DMark06 4467

GeForce 9500 GT, 32 shader cores, 128-bit GDDR3
575MHz core, ?MHz shaders, 1600MHz memory data rate
3DMark03 18711
3DMark05 12071
3DMark06 5831

GeForce GT 220, 48 shader cores, 128-bit DDR2
625MHz core, 1360MHz shaders, 800MHz memory data rate
3DMark03 13987
3DMark05 9579
3DMark06 4870

GeForce GT 220, 48 shader cores, 128-bit DDR3
625MHz core, 1360MHz shaders, 1580MHz memory data rate
3DMark03 19434
3DMark05 12833
3DMark06 6373

GeForce 9600 GSO (old version), 96 shader cores, 192-bit GDDR3
575MHz core, 1458MHz shaders, 1600MHz memory data rate
3DMark03 25770
3DMark05 13364
3DMark06 8195

GeForce 9600 GT, 64 shader cores, 256-bit GDDR3
650MHz core, 1400MHz shaders, 1800MHz memory data rate
3DMark03 32259
3DMark05 16459
3DMark06 9820

(BTW all systems tested on C2D E6750 stock speed)

I don't have power draw measurements, but temperatures were pretty darn low with load temps ranging from 50-70ºC.

 

[spankure]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Link.

That link is about CS4, since the suit has been available for a while we now know that it uses standard opengl for the acceleration.

Supported Video Cards :
Adobe recommends DirectX 9.0 or later (on Windows) and Shader Model 3.0.* Display cards with 512MB or better of VRAM and support for OpenGL 2.0 are recommended.

With Apple pushing opencl and buying op lots of 4 series radeons. I would think Adobe would keep on using open standards for CS5, or a lot of there mac users would get mad.

 

[Denithor]

NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250: A Rebadged 9800 GTX+

You guys should ALL go read that article to clear things up.

Make sure you get the 1GB model.

I had one of the EVGA 9800GTX+ cards (before stepping up to a second GTX 260) that was nearly silent. As in my 120mm case fan made more noise than it once the drivers loaded in Windows. And you can always use Rivatuner to adjust fanspeed if not happy.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

That entire linked topic is a joke., seriously - and you are crazy if you go by some hearsay on some forum, written by a guy who writes like Rain Man...

But there appears to be a very effective solution on the horizon, a solution that is most likely more effective than anything else we have seen before and in our experience using Photoshop over the past 14 years. During a demonstration at Nvidia?s headquarters in Santa Clara, we got a glimpse of Adobe?s "Creative Suite Next" (or CS4), code-named ?Stonehenge?, which adds GPU and physics support to its existing multi-core support.

Link.

OP, if you can why not hold out for Fermi? Obviously it will be better at gaming then the current solutions, but the much bigger impact is going to be on GPGPU performance which it seems is what you are mainly looking for. Fermi should be an absolute beast GPGPU wise, significantly faster then the G92 based parts.

+1

 

[AmdInside]

Why not go with this deal. It still works for me.

http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1620019

Geforce GTX 260 Core 216 for $125 after coupon code and $25 eVGA rebate.