NVIDIA Slips in GeForce GT 520 Entry-Level Graphics Card

[btarunr]

Even as AMD's Radeon HD HD 6450 ebbs and flows between paper-launch and market-launch, NVIDIA is ready with its competitor, launched by its AIC partners: the GeForce GT 520. The new GPU marks NVIDIA's current-generation entry to the very basic low-end discrete graphics card segment, which are intended to be integrated graphics replacement products. NVIDIA's GeForce GT 520 is based on the new 40 nm GF118 silicon, it packs 48 CUDA cores, and a 64-bit wide GDDR3 memory interface, while being compact enough to fit on low-profile single slot board designs, if it's backed by an active (fan) heatsink. It is possible that passive heatsinks take up two slots.

The core is clocked at 810 MHz, and CUDA cores at 1620 MHz. The memory is clocked at 900 MHz (actual, 1.8 GHz effective), churning out memory bandwidth of 14.4 GB/s. The card is designed to have three kinds of outputs which will be available on most partner designs: DVI, D-Sub (usually detachable), and full-size HDMI 1.4a, with HDMI audio. The card relies entirely on slot power. Its maximum power draw is rated at 29W. The GT 520 should take up entry-level price points around the US $50 mark.

[cheesy999]

Originally Posted by btarunr

Even as AMD's Radeon HD HD 6450 ebbs and flows between paper-launch and market-launch, NVIDIA is ready with its competitor, launched by its AIC partners: the GeForce GT 520. The new GPU marks NVIDIA's current-generation entry to the very basic low-end discrete graphics card segment, which are intended to be integrated graphics replacement products. NVIDIA's GeForce GT 520 is based on the new 40 nm GF118 silicon, it packs 48 CUDA cores, and a 64-bit wide GDDR3 memory interface, while being compact enough to fit on low-profile single slot board designs, if it's backed by an active (fan) heatsink. It is possible that passive heatsinks take up two slots.

The core is clocked at 810 MHz, and CUDA cores at 1620 MHz. The memory is clocked at 900 MHz (actual, 1.8 GHz effective), churning out memory bandwidth of 14.4 GB/s. The card is designed to have three kinds of outputs which will be available on most partner designs: DVI, D-Sub (usually detachable), and full-size HDMI 1.4a, with HDMI audio. The card relies entirely on slot power. Its maximum power draw is rated at 29W. The GT 520 should take up entry-level price points around the US $50 mark.

48 cores is quite good for a card this price, compared to the current market cards such as the 5450 or gt220

[devguy]

I wonder how much longer nVidia will keep shooting for this market? This card is too weak to do a lot of gaming, and still costs consumers/manufacturers extra dough. Plus, it's extra power consumption and noise. Cuda support isn't going to save it either; Many of us live our lives without Cuda, and despite what nVidia wants world+dog to believe, we don't cry ourselves to sleep over it.

The Brazos and Sandy Bridge graphics both offer reasonable enough performance, and both can hardware accelerate 1080p in Linux/Windows, and they are already included on die. The Llano graphics should decimate this, and the Ivy Bridge graphics will probably be about on par, with both having DX11 support to tick off on the box (Sandy Bridge doesn't have that checkbox; regardless of how useless it is, it is still a selling point).

I see the low end discrete market altogether disappearing soon. While the HD 6450 and GT520 may not be the final low-end cards released, I think they should be.

[Trackr]

The GT 220 is actually better than this, cheaper and was released two years ago.

Complete rehash.

[kid41212003]

Onboard chip takes care of this market segment already...

[u2konline]

card is crap, simple as that. and i am sick of these ddr3 cards.

[Apocalypsee]

I used the laptop version of this, GT 520M which basically the same thing and same clock. This card really surprises me, 3DMark06 hovers ~5000 marks even with lowly Pentium P6200. Overclocked to 930MHz/1860MHz core/shader and 960MHz memory could reach 6000 marks. For comparison the comparable HD 5470 only scored ~4200 marks

In games it can play Crysis 2 at 1280x720 with medium + high detail with no AA fluently. GTA IV with extra tweaking and some CPU overclock could play at 1280x720 medium setting at ~33fps. I really surprised with this little card capability given it have roughly the same spec as its AMD competitor but it do a lot better, games mention above would simply unplayable on HD 5470 at the same detail setting despite similar hardware

Don't judge the card performance if you never used it, please. Its annoying to see people bashing the product they never use.

[NC37]

Could see these going away if APUs get better. But Intel has a ways to go before theirs can be competitive. Not only on hardware but drivers too. AMD stands a better chance with their tech based off decades of GPUs, along with good drivers to support it.

But as for being totally phased out. Doubt it. Older boards need parts/etc. If this was an Apple dominated market then sure. Course Macs have gone from good upgrade potential to just scrap and buy new. They don't want customers to keep their machines forever, they want them to buy again. Rather wasteful but its how it works till the industry gets in trouble and is forced to change.

[mlee49]

Originally Posted by u2konline

card is crap, simple as that. and i am sick of these ddr3 cards.

Actually it'd be perfect for your 19" CRT.

Seriously though, when did u2konline get crap slinging rights?

[newtekie1]

These are definitely going to be decent as a HTPC card, especiallly if it is connected to a 720p TV. At 720p, these cards should be able to handle mild gaming. Definitely not a huge step up from a Fuzion APU, but a definitely step up, and for only $50 it is worth considering.

[kaneda]

Originally Posted by Apocalypsee

I used the laptop version of this, GT 520M which basically the same thing and same clock. This card really surprises me, 3DMark06 hovers ~5000 marks even with lowly Pentium P6200. Overclocked to 930MHz/1860MHz core/shader and 960MHz memory could reach 6000 marks. For comparison the comparable HD 5470 only scored ~4200 marks

In games it can play Crysis 2 at 1280x720 with medium + high detail with no AA fluently. GTA IV with extra tweaking and some CPU overclock could play at 1280x720 medium setting at ~33fps. I really surprised with this little card capability given it have roughly the same spec as its AMD competitor but it do a lot better, games mention above would simply unplayable on HD 5470 at the same detail setting despite similar hardware

Don't judge the card performance if you never used it, please. Its annoying to see people bashing the product they never use.

You were using the mobile version, this has no place in desktops. Not with the emergence of stronger discreet graphics. Don't get me started on the mobile graphics market...

[MikeX]

What a waste of material.
I don't mind seeing low(mid) end card get re-brand from last generation, as long as it's the same DX/nm