1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Inno3D GeForce 9600 GSO+ Spotted

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Nov 15, 2008.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,200 (11.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,570
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    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.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Source: Expreview
  2. RadeonX2

    RadeonX2 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,197 (0.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    180
    Location:
    Asia, PH
    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 :laugh:
  3. [I.R.A]_FBi

    [I.R.A]_FBi New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    7,664 (2.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    540
    Location:
    c:\programs\kitteh.exe
    Why though? Can u get wizz to do a shootout?
  4. RadeonX2

    RadeonX2 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,197 (0.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    180
    Location:
    Asia, PH
    9600GSO has an OCP protection like in 9600GT

    [​IMG]

    now for the performance it surely drop down below 9600GT but for the price :rockout:
  5. [I.R.A]_FBi

    [I.R.A]_FBi New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    7,664 (2.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    540
    Location:
    c:\programs\kitteh.exe
    so a 192 gso would be better?
  6. HaZe303

    HaZe303 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    305 (0.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Location:
    Sweden (08-Stockholm)
    I like the look of the cooler, black & white looks so sexy on HW.
  7. RadeonX2

    RadeonX2 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,197 (0.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    180
    Location:
    Asia, PH
    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 :laugh:
  8. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,200 (11.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,570
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    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.
  9. RadeonX2

    RadeonX2 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,197 (0.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    180
    Location:
    Asia, PH
    good point cost cutting which uses 55nm G94 core + faster bus interface on it's new 9600GSO+ and a good move for Nvidia.
  10. KieranD

    KieranD

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    8,002 (3.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    812
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    why not just buy an old 8800gs? this card is dumbass unless it costs next to nothing
  11. RadeonX2

    RadeonX2 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,197 (0.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    180
    Location:
    Asia, PH
    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.
  12. Basard

    Basard

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2006
    Messages:
    582 (0.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Location:
    Oshkosh
    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.
  13. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    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.
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2008
  14. Millenia

    Millenia New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    99 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Location:
    Turenki, Finland
    Oh yay, another rehash. I can barely curtail my excitement >_>
  15. KainXS

    KainXS

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,600 (2.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    501
    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
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2008
  16. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    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!!
  17. KainXS

    KainXS

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,600 (2.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    501
    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
  18. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    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.
  19. Silverel

    Silverel New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,769 (0.73/day)
    Thanks Received:
    233
    Location:
    Detroit, MI
    oHai! anuvver 9600. kthnx nVidia!
  20. Swansen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    Messages:
    182 (0.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9
    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.
  21. HaZe303

    HaZe303 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    305 (0.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Location:
    Sweden (08-Stockholm)
    I think you just said what they are aiming for?? TO have a card for every dollar/class?
  22. tkpenalty New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,958 (2.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    Australia, Sydney
    Remember guys, a 4670's core is quite literally a cut down 4870's core so Nvidia doing this isn't very surprising.
  23. DaMulta

    DaMulta My stars went supernova

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    16,117 (5.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,454
    Location:
    Oklahoma T-Town
    The O in GSO stands for old:roll:

    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.
  24. ShadowFold

    ShadowFold New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Messages:
    16,919 (7.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,644
    Location:
    Omaha, NE
    A rebadge of a rebadge. Nice.
  25. FudFighter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Messages:
    109 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    joy another crap nvidia card........ just wait, this will become the gt200gso soon :p

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page