Bought a GALAXY GeForce 210 graphics card

[Zubasa]

Quick 3DMark 2006 run. My Phenom II X4 955 is underclocked and undervolted to 2.6GHz/1.25v to save a little juice. Card at stock frequencies 590/1400/400.

http://img.techpowerup.org/091006/G210 3D06 stock.png

You realy should go Vantage, 3DMark06 is pretty much CPU bound nowadays.

 

[HalfAHertz]

I see this card as more of a test of the 40nm/Dx10.1 than anything else. Let's hope that we'll see some GT300s soon enough. Wonder if the architecture is based on the gt200 or the g92

 

[Jstn7477]

A run of 3DMark Vantage, on Entry level settings. Card at 775/1725/480. Don't know if PhysX was on or not.

And Performace Preset:

 

[JayliN]

nice pics. I wonder what the idle power consumption is.

 

[Jstn7477]

nice pics. I wonder what the idle power consumption is.

Should be pretty low. The card runs at 135/135 when idling. NVIDIA claims the GPU uses up to 30w max.

 

[Jstn7477]

It looks like the best stable overclock that I achieved with this sample is 775/1725/575. I will probably bench it tomorrow at that speed. From what I have noticed, I believe that the 64 bit GDDR2 memory is a bottleneck. Overclocking it noticeably improved the performance of the card, especially with an overclocked GPU.

I hope you have enjoyed reading this mini-review.

 

[Jstn7477]

I have just uploaded 3DMark01 SE and 3DMark03 results. All results are now consolidated into post #1.

 

[RadeonProVega]

I really hope they fix the correct stats on that card, because that 0.8 pixel fillrate is scaring me seriously.

Anyways, i just got back from bestbuy about 2 hours ago, i seen the card in the store, but no price was present.

 

[Jstn7477]

I really hope they fix the correct stats on that card, because that 0.8 pixel fillrate is scaring me seriously.

Anyways, i just got back from bestbuy about 2 hours ago, i seen the card in the store, but no price was present.

The core should be the exact same setup as a 9400 GT. It just has a 64bit memory bus (vs. the 9400's 128bit) but it is upgraded to DX10.1, and it's 40nm vs. the 55nm 9xxx cards. GPU-Z reads it wrong because it simply has no information on the card.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_NVIDIA_GPUs#GeForce_200_Series

The cards don't have price tags at my BB, but they are present in the computer system. My card is $69.99, the GT220 (128 bit, 48 shader that I might buy next week) is $119.99.

 

[RadeonProVega]

That GeForce GT 220 seems to be more powerful. Guess by the time i buy my secondary rig, i will look into buying the GeForce GT 220 one with GDDR3 memory.

 

[Jstn7477]

That GeForce GT 220 seems to be more powerful. Guess by the time i buy my secondary rig, i will look into buying the GeForce GT 220 one with GDDR3 memory.

Yeah, I think Galaxy skimped out on the BB GT220 because I think it only has DDR2 memory. I think the 64bit DDR2 is holding back my 210, as my results improved noticeably with the 44% memory OC.

 

[goldfries]

I'm using the GT220 now. Looks good so far.

Now doing my 2nd round of benching, this time with lower settings to see how's the framerate like.

Power Consumption looks like my 9600GT Low Power / Low Profile version. The card feels faster then a 9500GT but slower than 9600GSO (it's been a while since I used any 9600GSO but i could remember how it was, more or less.)

 

[Jstn7477]

I'm using the GT220 now. Looks good so far.

Now doing my 2nd round of benching, this time with lower settings to see how's the framerate like.

Power Consumption looks like my 9600GT Low Power / Low Profile version. The card feels faster then a 9500GT but slower than 9600GSO (it's been a while since I used any 9600GSO but i could remember how it was, more or less.)

Do you have the DDR2 or DDR3 version?

EDIT: NVM, I saw my other thread, you have the DDR3 version. Thanks!