Discussion in 'Reviews' started by W1zzard, Oct 15, 2009.
To read this review go to: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Inno3D/GeForce_210/
Nice Review Wizz....
I just want to complain about something....
Well usually all reviewers test this kind of card with an absolutely ignorant system and with high eye candy settings.....
My opinion is that a E7XXX or E5XXX system, with 4gb ddr2 ou ddr3...... micro-atx or mini-itx motherboards / no eye candy and anti-aliasing would make a lot more sense with cards like this one.... 9400gt... hd4550.... I mean, low processing and consumption card power....
This way the type of guy which will buy this card, will have a much more accurate idea of it.
cool another pointless card if your a gamer. Unless you dont mind gaming at 640x480
basically for OEM machines that have Bad Onboard Video but cant run anything faster because the Processor Sucks balls. My card being 4 Generations Behind whoops the snot out of this card.
Guys, you have to remember that not everybody is in the market for a full-blown gaming graphics card. As evidenced in Team Fortress 2 (which has a somewhat high market penetration thanks to Valve's reputation), you don't need a great video card to get playable FPS. Not everybody plays Crysis, ya know.
im sorry but Crysis isnt worth mentioning for gaming, COD4, UT3, FEAR, Quake 4, are games worth Playing.
This card would be decent for a small HTPC, but I wouldn't put it any higher than that service. Hell in the same $50 price range you can get GPU's that will give you better frame rate in your semi-recent games. It is not a matter of "Does it play Crysis" or not. The point it, overall it has a nitch market, small HTPC with little air flow. This will play your HD content and run Windows 7 Areo; however, for the same price range you can get more power, less noise (with fan) that will play the same HD content with less CPU usage at a higher resolution.
I agree. Also there is missing comparisons to IGP solutions like an AMD 780G or 785G motherboard. The Geforce 210 is such a low performance gaming card/GPU and the conclusion is all about the power/HTPC value, there really should be comparisons to IGP.
I know techpowerup is more a tech enthusiast website, but it seems that these HTPC add-on cards are going to stay around for another generation or so. And ATIs 56xx and 55xx series are coming out soon. It would be great to create an alternate HTPC rig like DaC suggested or even better an AMD system with an AthlonII ($99 620 quad cores or one of the new 45w variants) and a 785G micro-atx motherboard. Then you could compare the integrated 785G graphics to these low-end graphics cards. The 785G IGP has all the features of this G210 card. Obviously one would not need to test all the cards in the current database, and maybe not even all the games you currently use.
It just seems to me that there is a point where buying a $60 motherboard with IGP makes more sense than buying a different motherboard with one of these ~$50ish graphics cards. There are not many review websites that show both IGP and low-end graphics cards. They either skip the IGP or only benchmark the IGP against previous generations.
edit: I am able to run Mirror's Edge at 1280x1024 on my 780G IGP (ASUS M3A78-EM) at lowest quality settings with no AA and get around 20-25fps and be able to play the game. At 1024x768 it runs over 30fps and definitely playable, just not very pretty.
The 210 has Physx? According to Nvidia ( http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx_gpus.html ) only the GT 220/9500 GT/ 8600 GT and up had Physx?
imo the only thing good of this review is for gather more info for techpowerup database. Nothing else although i cant complain as is well done as always.
I agrre on what jessiacafae said. If w1zz can compare these cards in a chart which also has some of Intel and AMD IGP solutions, it will be good rather than making this card look like I'm new and I'm the biggest loser compared to the gaming cards.
I also would have liked to see how it stacked up against the Radeon HD 4200 (785G) and Radeon HD 3300 (790GX). Also I'm surprised that the Radeon HD 4350 wasn't benched against it.
My box for my G210 advertised PhysX capabilities. See my review in the link in my sig.
I just want to know if you do that at the same time.
why bother grabbing this when the IGP solutions would just do fine and would save you 70-120 USD
Yes, I can game (Team Fortress 2) on the GeForce 210 and still do full PPD on the 9800 GT at the same time. The only interruption is when the F@H client finishes a WU, as it seems to make both GPUs unresponsive for a few seconds and causes my game to freeze for about 10 seconds.
wow... worse than a 9400GT
Well I have had trouble with certain IGP's handling large screens with weak CPU's. Which is technically the CPU's fault, but replacing the GPU can be cheaper. Plus you can actually game on it a little. I wouldn't do it, but my computer has spoiled me.
That could be very doable in near future
The best thing is to compare this card to direct competitor like hd4550. both cards have 54 bit system ddr2 memory at around 500Mhz (hd4550 has slower memory i think) and both ar low powe and low profile for htpc market. ATi's HD4550 is almost a year older and on now dead 55nm node and still consume only 50% more power in burn-in test and almost 80% more than gt210 in "heavy 3d gaming" whatever that would be. But with hd4550 you can even play some games on something more than 1024x768 and all that on roughly 33% cheaper card which will soon be replaced with some 3x more powerful rv810/Cedar under same power constrains.
I wonder why this small chip and on such a small node consumes that much and gives almost nothing in return (except extra small power consumption we had already in IGPs like 785g)
Separate names with a comma.