Saturday, July 5th 2008

NVIDIA Prepares GeForce 9500, up to 3 times Faster than 8500 GT

NVIDIA is preparing an addition to its GeForce 9 series, the GeForce 9500, slated for a July 29, 2008 launch. This product is positioned at an entry-mid range level, consists of two variants, the GeForce 9500 GDDR3, and a DDR2 model. Early tests prove this graphics processor (GPU) to be close to three times faster than the previous-generation 8500 GT. Unlike the reference 8500, this GPU supports 2-way SLI.

The nomenclature isn't certain yet. While the GDDR3 variant could be named 9500 GT, it remains to be seen what the DDR2 variant would be named. Provided, are images (in order) of the DDR2 and GDDR3 variants, followed by the specifications sheet.

With inputs from Hardspell, Images courtesy Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

18 Comments on NVIDIA Prepares GeForce 9500, up to 3 times Faster than 8500 GT

#1
tkpenalty
If nvidia can keep prices low, this 9500GT will be a winner...
Posted on Reply
#2
TheGoat Eater
nice, short, and looks like no extra PCI-E 6pin power needed overall looks like it could be a winner if the performance is there
Posted on Reply
#3
tkpenalty
I hope its "at least 3 times faster" and not "3 times faster in 3d mark vantage"
Posted on Reply
#4
JrRacinFan
Served 5k and counting ...
Depending on price these could be a worthwhile SLi configuration. Nvidia is kinda competing with itself with this card, referring to the 8800GS/9600GSO.
Posted on Reply
#5
calvary1980
chinese did a review months ago, expreview did one too it isn't that much faster however this card supports the VP3 Engine and Hybrid Power.





it also has a nifty feature according to expreview that underclocks the GPU to save energy in Idle.

When idling, 9500GT core clock drop to 200MHz instantly (Rivatuner reads it wrong)

PowerPlay helps ATI cards have decent power consumption. Compare to NVIDIA cards of the same performance level, ATI cards have less power consumption when idling, because when the card is idle, the clock frequency will move lower.

While we are testing 9500GT, we found this is interesting: the card have a function similar to PowerPlay. When the card is idle, the core clock will go down to 200MHz automatically. The driver we are using is 174.74.

We are not sure what the tech will be called, maybe NVIDIA will still call it “PowerMizer”?
- Christine
Posted on Reply
#6
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: btarunr
Unlike the 8500, this GPU supports 2-way SLI.
The 8500 supported 2-way SLI. Some cards used software SLI, and others had the connecter, but they did do SLI.
Posted on Reply
#7
Swansen
confused???

so wait, if this is suppose to be three times better than the 8500, than it would place it above the current 9600 correct????
Posted on Reply
#8
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: newtekie1
The 8500 supported 2-way SLI. Some cards used software SLI, and others had the connected, but they did do SLI.
I didn't know that. Every 8500 I came across, at least the NV reference PCB ones had no SLI finger.
Posted on Reply
#9
JrRacinFan
Served 5k and counting ...
by: btarunr
I didn't know that. Every 8500 I came across, at least the NV reference PCB ones had no SLI finger.
I for one, know they support SLi but as for not having an SLi "finger" and which ones do not, is unsure information here.

I do know that eVGA's flavor of the 8500GT did/does.
Posted on Reply
#10
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: btarunr
I didn't know that. Every 8500 I came across, at least the NV reference PCB ones had no SLI finger.
Some had the finger, most didn't. The ones without the finger did "software" SLI over the PCI-E bus. Doing it this way didn't really affect performance either since the cards weren't powerful enough to even come close to maxing out the bus.
Posted on Reply
#11
Swansen
.... so know one has any input on my question???
Posted on Reply
#12
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Swansen
.... so know one has any input on my question???
Three times the 8500GT performance doesn't make it better than the 9600GT.



The 8500GT relative performance is only 22% of the 9600GT, three times that only puts it at 66%. The 9500GT will probably be just a little better than the 8600GTS.
Posted on Reply
#13
Swansen
awesome, thanks for the graph, on a side note, Nvidia's various nomenclatures lately are so confusing its ridiculous... Nothing follows any real order..
Posted on Reply
#14
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Swansen
awesome, thanks for the graph, on a side note, Nvidia's various nomenclatures lately are so confusing its ridiculous... Nothing follows any real order..
It all follows an order, I don't know how you can be confused by it. The only thing that really throws it off is the 9600GSO, it is supposed to be weaker than the 9600GT, but the extra shaders makes it about equal overall.
Posted on Reply
#15
Swansen
did you look at the chart? My problem is this, all the seven series cards were better than previous generations, same with the six series. Since the 8 and nine series came out, nothing really follows an order, there are seven series cards that are a lot better than 8 series cards, and same into the 9 and 8 series. then, there are cards within each nomenclature which don't follow an order. When they came out with the new cores in the 8 series they have lower number cards that were better than higher number cards, so you basically just had to pay attention to what core you were buying, thats all just craziness.
Posted on Reply
#16
calvary1980
I like this card. saves energy, gddr3, vp3, ports are emi shielded and no external power connection = perfect htpc card

it needs a nice passive heatsink from Asus though :)

- Christine
Posted on Reply
#17
Swansen
by: calvary1980
I like this card. saves energy, gddr3, vp3, ports are emi shielded and no external power connection = perfect htpc card

it needs a nice passive heatsink from Asus though :)

- Christine
Yes, my friend had exact same mentality when he was putting together a machine for his uncle's media PC.
Posted on Reply
#18
candle_86
well the reports ive gotten on core config are 32 shaders, 8rops, 8tmu's so this should be right there with the 8600GT unless they suddenly give it a 256bit bus
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment