Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by julieb, 4 Oct 2010.
Going by the GTS450's lackluster performance I wonder how well this card will perform (will it even manage to best a GT240?).
It could be the new Physx sweetheart though.
Ahh good point. I can't imagine it'd be that great as a main GPU.
Doesn't sound very stimulating does it? Have to wait and see what the benchmarks are..other than low haha.
Dammit, they beat me to it!
Let's face it. It's a media card, not a gaming card. They'd be foolish to advertise it as anything other than that.
proabbly beat a 9600 but not much else... not for me... i'm not everyone
come on nvidia - where is the top end?
Where's the 490 or 495.
I bet we'll see some gtx 485 and 475 soon
We will, bindi has declared it so....
Well considering nVidia is working on a rehash called Fermi 1.5 I would be surpised if we see GTX ##5 models coming out that have most of the design flaws of fermi worked out but we will see.
As for this card ya its more a basic user/ media card.
Isn't a GB of RAM a bit overkill for such a card? And what sort of prices were customers paying?
Not really tbh, RAM is becoming cheaper and since this card will be installed in HP's Dell's 'Multimedia PCs' i think 1GB is quite required for HD Blu Ray and large (wide) sceern / monitors
Not really. My 9600GT 512MB plays back 1080p perfectly fine.
There's an easy way to work out how much memory a particular resolution needs: vertical resolution times horizontal resolution times by bits per pixel.
So, let's assume you're watching your Blu-ray films at 1920 x 1080 at 32-bit colour. That's:
1920 * 1080 = 2073600
2073600 * 32 = 66355200 bits
Divide that by eight and we get 8294400 bytes - or just under 8MB for a single 1080p frame.
If we assume that your graphics card is triple-buffering the video, that's three lots of 8MB - or 24MB.
512MB is *plenty* for Blu-ray playback - and 1GB is definitely overkill.
Separate names with a comma.