Inno3D GeForce 9600 GSO+ Spotted

[btarunr]

The entry of Radeon HD 4670 did disturb NVIDIA's position, in a segment touted to be one of the cash-cow segments for both NVIDIA and AMD. It is to counter the HD 4870 in its price-range (by easing production-costs), that NVIDIA released a refreshed GeForce 9600 GSO+. The die on the GPU reads "G94-201-B1", pointing that the GPU uses the 55nm silicon fab process (9600 GSO used G92). With the reduced transistor-count on the G94 core, manufacturing the chip becomes cheaper. The real change however, is that NVIDIA made some significant changes to its shader and memory domains, hence the use of G94 core.

The shader count has been reduced from 96 on the 9600 GSO, to 48. This, by disabling 16 shaders from the G94 core. The core is clocked at 650/1675 MHz (core/shader). The GPU is allowed to use the complete width of its memory bus: 256-bit GDDR3. The card features 512 MB of memory, clocked at 1800 MHz. The memory chips featured on the Inno3D card are made by Qimonda, and have a 1.2 ns latency. The card uses a simplistic circular cooler for the GPU. It is expected to be priced at US $87.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[RadeonX2]

damn why did Nvidia cut the shaders to 48 instead of 96 as the first gen of 9600GSO gets the 96SP. I hope this doesn't have the famous blackscreen of death problem

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

Why though? Can u get wizz to do a shootout?

 

[RadeonX2]

Why though? Can u get wizz to do a shootout?

9600GSO has an OCP protection like in 9600GT

now for the performance it surely drop down below 9600GT but for the price

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

so a 192 gso would be better?

 

[HaZe303]

I like the look of the cooler, black & white looks so sexy on HW.

 

[RadeonX2]

so a 192 gso would be better?

if you can find a 96SP 768MB 9600GSO then that would be better. I guess Nvidia did the cutting of SP on 9600GSO maybe bcoz it overpowered 9600GT

 

[btarunr]

I guess Nvidia did the cutting of SP on 9600GSO maybe bcoz it overpowered 9600GT

To me it looks more like cost-cutting, and bringing out a card that just about beats HD 4670 in its price-point, while having the potential to sell for cheaper. 9600 GT is a wonderful GPU. By removing disabling 25% of its shaders while retaining its memory sub-system, NV gets to sell a HD 4670-beating card cheaper for two reasons: 1) 55nm, 2) not a G92.

 

[RadeonX2]

To me it looks more like cost-cutting, and bringing out a card that just about beats HD 4670 in its price-point, while having the potential to sell for cheaper. 9600 GT is a wonderful GPU. By removing disabling 25% of its shaders while retaining its memory sub-system, NV gets to sell a HD 4670-beating card cheaper for two reasons: 1) 55nm, 2) not a G92.

good point cost cutting which uses 55nm G94 core + faster bus interface on it's new 9600GSO+ and a good move for Nvidia.

 

[MilkyWay]

why not just buy an old 8800gs? this card is dumbass unless it costs next to nothing

 

[RadeonX2]

why not just buy an old 8800gs? this card is dumbass unless it costs next to nothing

It was better back when it uses G92 96SP 768MB but too costly so Nvidia decided to cut it down I guess the performance impact is not noticeable. it's between price and performance imo.

 

[Basard]

yeah, if i even were to buy this card, i wouldnt pay more than 75 for it... i see now its gonna be 87 bucks... meh... they try to cater to too many crowds, thats nvidias problem lately i think. its like--if we release MORE cards thats MORE publicity or something, and not better cards, just random cards they have to fill all the gaps. Too much diversity, not enough goods.

the cooler looks pretty nice though. they need a better reference cooler, a more open one like this, that you can actually clean.

 

[DarkMatter]

I think people are assuming this card will not perform too quickly...

The 9600GT is quite faster than 9600GSO despite it having less SPs. As you go higher in the settings (specially AA) the difference can get abismal. The new GSO mantains the ROPs/memory width and clocks of the GT, so at higher settings, actually "normal" resolutions nowadays, above 1280*1024 with 4x AA, this card will probably be faster than the old one. In fact it could destroy it in many games (i.e. Crysis).

Look at Wizz's reviews (for example: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Palit/Revolution_R700/27.html) and see how the 9600GT is around 18% faster overall than the GSO (in the graphs it's shown as 8%, but with base 100% of the HD4870 X2, actual difference can be extracted by: (53%/45%)=1.177; 17.7 %) and when we compare performance at 1920x1200 it's 28% higher for the GT. At 1280x1024 (2xAA in most games) is already a 20% faster. NOW the new GSO has the same architecture with 33% less SPs, so in the worst case scenario (a totally shader dependant game, which doesn't exist) the NEW GSO can only be a 33% slower than the GT. 33% theoretical (and with low probabilities) versus 20-28% real, in different situations. IMO new GSO WINS hands down.

We should just wait till reviews come out, before judging it. I have the impression the new GSO will be significantly faster in most common settings. It will not be as good at folding though.

 

[Millenia]

Oh yay, another rehash. I can barely curtail my excitement >_>

 

[KainXS]

I think people are assuming this card will not perform too quickly...

The 9600GT is quite faster than 9600GSO despite it having less SPs. As you go higher in the settings (specially AA) the difference can get abismal. The new GSO mantains the ROPs/memory width and clocks of the GT, so at higher settings, actually "normal" resolutions nowadays, above 1280*1024 with 4x AA, this card will probably be faster than the old one. In fact it could destroy it in many games (i.e. Crysis).

Look at Wizz's reviews (for example: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Palit/Revolution_R700/27.html) and see how the 9600GT is around 18% faster overall than the GSO (in the graphs it's shown as 8%, but with base 100% of the HD4870 X2, actual difference can be extracted by: (53%/45%)=1.177; 17.7 %) and when we compare performance at 1920x1200 it's 28% higher for the GT. At 1280x1024 (2xAA in most games) is already a 20% faster. NOW the new GSO has the same architecture with 33% less SPs, so in the worst case scenario (a totally shader dependant game, which doesn't exist) the NEW GSO can only be a 33% slower than the GT. 33% theoretical (and with low probabilities) versus 20-28% real, in different situations. IMO new GSO WINS hands down.

We should just wait till reviews come out, before judging it. I have the impression the new GSO will be significantly faster in most common settings. It will not be as good at folding though.

for a fair review I think the 9600GSO should have the same clocks as the 9600GT instead of its crappy reference clocks that nvidia gave it, that would be a good review since the G94's are nothing but die strunk G92's

good card for graphics but a bad card for cuda, physx, and folding

wow, Millenia, my sisters name is Millenia, thats a suprise

 

[DarkMatter]

for a fair review I think the 9600GSO should have the same clocks as the 9600GT instead of its crappy reference clocks that nvidia gave it, that would be a good review

good card for graphics but a bad card for cuda, physx, and folding

wow, Millenia, my sisters name is Millenia, thats a suprise

Agreed to an extent.

Maybe this comes as a surprise but CUDA does require ROPs and a good memory bandwidth. F@H and PhysX not so much, if at all, but GPGPU programs overall require them as much as SPs. That's primarily why GT200 has so many ROPs and memory bandwidth, that's why G80 had them too.

Don't get me wrong, the weight of added SPs in overall GPGPU performance is higher. But don't think that the old GSO has twice the performace because it has twice the SPs.

About PhysX... Do you honestly believe you will be able to play a 2009 PhysX enabled game on a GSO? New or old? Added physX requires some added graphical power (UT3 mod pack). It will most probably be a high-end high settings feature on games, but not as much as to need full utilisation of 96 SPs, should you use a dedicated card. My bet is that the first ones will require the use of 1 SP cluster or two at most, so that you can play with a single GTX card just well. That's 24-48 (16-32 G92's) at most. Take into account that 24 SPs on a GTX cards already have twice the power of a Quad!!

 

[KainXS]

Agreed to an extent.

Maybe this comes as a surprise but CUDA does require ROPs and a good memory bandwidth. F@H and PhysX not so much, if at all, but GPGPU programs overall require them as much as SPs. That's primarily why GT200 has so many ROPs and memory bandwidth, that's why G80 had them too.

Don't get me wrong, the weight of added SPs in overall GPGPU performance is higher. But don't think that the old GSO has twice the performace because it has twice the SPs.

About PhysX... Do you honestly believe you will be able to play a 2009 PhysX enabled game on a GSO? New or old? Added physX requires some added graphical power (UT3 mod pack). It will most probably be a high-end high settings feature on games, but not as much as to need full utilisation of 96 SPs, should you use a dedicated card. My bet is that the first ones will require the use of 1 SP cluster or two at most, so that you can play with a single GTX card just well. That's 24-48 (16-32 G92's) at most. Take into account that 24 SPs on a GTX cards already have twice the power of a Quad!!

no way I don't play physx games on a GS, I use my GS with my 2 9800GX2's for physx, oc the shaders to 2200, drop the core clock and its a really good physx card

 

[DarkMatter]

no way I don't play physx games on a GS, I use my GS with my 2 9800GX2's for physx, oc the shaders to 2200, drop the core clock and its a really good physx card

So you use the GS as a dedicated card. A 9500GT will probably be enough in the next year. What I meant is that a GS falls short for graphics + physx and is probably too much for dedicated physx for the time being.

 

[Silverel]

oHai! anuvver 9600. kthnx nVidia!

 

[Swansen]

this is just getting crazy to me, they have SSOOOO many re-hashes and cards. There is literally a card for every dollar amount from 50-300... and for every extra dollar you spend you get 1% more performance, this is just ridiculous. I don't even know what they are aiming for here.

 

[HaZe303]

I don't even know what they are aiming for here.

I think you just said what they are aiming for?? TO have a card for every dollar/class?

 

[tkpenalty]

Remember guys, a 4670's core is quite literally a cut down 4870's core so Nvidia doing this isn't very surprising.

 

[DaMulta]

why not just buy an old 8800gs? this card is dumbass unless it costs next to nothing

The O in GSO stands for old

LOL


I think with the 9k you did get the upgrade for PCI-E overclocking......Dom, and Froggy did some wonders with their Palit GSO cards.

 

[ShadowFold]

A rebadge of a rebadge. Nice.

 

[FudFighter]

joy another crap nvidia card........ just wait, this will become the gt200gso soon