I can't really see a use for cards this weak in todays market...

newtekie1I can't really see a use for cards this weak in todays market...

Yet low end cards are sold a lot more than high end cards. On-board solutions for example determine most of the market. Why do you think Intel reigns? Most people don't need fast cards, the fact that we do does not reflect on the market.

On a sidenote, do these low end cards support physx and which uses the least power?

DanTheBanjomanYet low end cards are sold a lot more than high end cards. On-board solutions for example determine most of the market. Why do you think Intel reigns? Most people don't need fast cards, the fact that we do does not reflect on the market.

On a sidenote, do these low end cards support physx and which uses the least power?

I know there is a market for low end cards, but with the current cards on the market I just don't see these as being useful additions to the market. We already have cards that fill the role perfectly. The 9400GT is basically just a rebadged 8500GT. People that just want a low end card to get away from onboard can get a 8400GS for $30, they don't need anything better, and the 8500GT can be had for $50. With the 9400GT debuting at $60, which is already more than the 9500GT, I just don't see these cards being useful additions to the market. I guess I worded it wrong originally, I know there is a larger low-end market, it is just that I don't see these cards fitting in it.

they will fit once the other products EOL.

DanTheBanjomanOn a sidenote, do these low end cards support physx and which uses the least power?

Yes, PhysX is supported. Second is an interesting question. The PCBs look identical, regarding power draw, we've to see what's under that heatsink of the 256M card, whether they shed the number of memory chips or used the same number of low-density chips (low density sometimes = cheap/old/older fab process). We don't know about the clock speeds (differences between the cards) either.

Wonder what the specs are.

Since a 9500gt is basiclly an 8600gt

Wonder what this card runs like.

My only interest is That these will probably start popping up in laptops .

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127380

The first 9400GT appears on newegg.

As for the specs, it looks like the 9400GT is just a 8500GT. Both have 16 SPs and a 128-bit bus.

[I.R.A]_FBithey will fit once the other products EOL.

I know, I'm just getting tired of this whole thing of EOLing one product just to re-release it as another model number. There are a few instances where it is a good move, but IMO, nVidia is kind of taking it too far. I know they want to get rid of the 8 series cards, and make everything a 9 series(I assume to help cut down confusion between the two), but I don't think it is really necessary. Maybe if they would have switched these parts to 55nm I wouldn't be as hard on them, but since they aren't 55nm yet, I just don't think nVidia should have pushed them onto the market.

well if its a rebadged 8500GT its not to terrible, should keep up with the likes of the 6800/x800GTO

DanTheBanjomanYet low end cards are sold a lot more than high end cards. On-board solutions for example determine most of the market. Why do you think Intel reigns? Most people don't need fast cards, the fact that we do does not reflect on the market.

On a sidenote, do these low end cards support physx and which uses the least power?

Ya but, you can go and pick up 'old' generation cards which ARE faster, and even if their raw horsepower is slower, their other features, such as more ROP, SP, increased RAMdac and texture RAM/bandwidth, make them far more useful.

They also cost even less or the same as the new 'budget' products.


And seriously, there's cards out there that will give FINE performance for LOTS of people, and they're less than a hundred bucks.


I'm with newTekie on this one, these types of cards need to dissapear forever. It just screws up the market and the development of tech, because they release budget after flagship, which decreases the value and worth of the flagship, and also gives people false impressions about a product's capability. Whatever happened to entry level first, flagship last? Oh ya I forgot, E-peen.


FFS, how much cheaper do you need things?

Wonder what the price will be. 8400GS' are cheap as chips (last one cost me $23) its just a shame they could really only handle progressive 720 and 1080 and no de-interlacing. 9400GT should change that provided it is cheaper than the twice the price 8500GT :)

Not bad for a media box on the cheap. This one probably has the latest PureVideo goodies for video playback. Great for a media box build on a tight budget.

Until recently I used a lowly GeForce 6200TC with only 16MB of VRAM (can use up to 128MB of system RAM if necessary) in one of my old AMD based media boxes. It was perfect for what it did. It ran cool, completely silent (passive), and could playback video without any problems. This 9400GT has to be several times faster and more feature packed than a 6200TC.

way more, the 8500GT is comparable to the 6800 256mb or the x800GTO cards, or more cloesly the 7600GS/x1600pro cards. So in if this holds true for the 9400GT to preform like the 8500GT then its alot faster than your 6200TC, as a 6200TC is preformance comparable to say a Geforce3 ti 200.

Newegg took it off :

Lets be honest.. these cards suck. The only reason people will buy shit like this is because most PC users are uneducated, and will buy whatever a sales rep shoves down their throat. Not long ago I saw a TV ad touting a 6200 IGP and saying the machine was "great for gaming" :rolleyes: I think that says just about everything.

Why? WoW will run just fine. If WoW is all you play (or do, God forbid), you needn't get anything beyond this.