Nvidia rolls out $80 GeForce GT 430 for HTPC enthusiasts

[tweakboy]

http://www.techspot.com/news/40611-nvidia-rolls-out-80-geforce-gt-430-for-htpc-enthusiasts.html

 

[tweakboy]

Get a hollywood bridge if they still are in business... if you want to do HTCP.

 

[HurleyBird]

numbers from anand are pretty disappointing.

 

[OCGuy]

numbers from anand are pretty disappointing.

What were you expecting from a $80 current-gen HTPC card?

 

[Skurge]

What were you expecting from a $80 current-gen HTPC card?

Its slower than a $50 GT240, Id expect it to cost the same as 5570 that is also a current-gen HTPC card (even though the 5570 is a much better HTPC card)

 

[HurleyBird]

What were you expecting from a $80 current-gen HTPC card?

Current gen? the card was just released

But anyway, I expected it to be at least on par with the current $80 HTPC card released close to a year ago instead of being beaten to a pulp by it. Also, since GT-430 is almost the same die size as HD5670 (despite having a few less transistors the Nvidia die is something like 11% larger), this launch makes for an easy comparison between the architectures, and reinforces what I've been saying since Fermi launched that Nvidia is *at least* a half generation behind architecturally... and AMD's next generation launches in a week or two.

Things aren't looking too hot for Nvidia right now.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

I just dont see why they skimped on ROPS... Thats whats killing its performance.

Seriously, 4??

 

[Lonyo]

I just dont see why they skimped on ROPS... Thats whats killing its performance.

Seriously, 4??

1) Anandtech explains some reasoning.
2) Anandtech suggests that the ROP reduction doesn't really impact fillrate compared to 8 ROP cards like the GT240.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3973/nvidias-geforce-gt-430

 

[DaveSimmons]

Unless you care about blu-ray 3D it's a second-rate card.

 

[Sylvanas]

A pretty disappointing release. Only a worthwhile consideration if you need HDMI1.4a or 3D support now (ATI's next gen appears to be going here soon anyway). Looking at Anand's compute results goes to show why I hope Nvidia does not pursue this ILP architecture, as in most cases, it leads to sub optimal performance. It's good to see Nvidia improving performance in this area though (as each new driver release bring a myriad of GTX460 improvements, an architecture which is also dependant on ILP).

 

[apoppin]

A pretty disappointing release. Only a worthwhile consideration if you need HDMI1.4a or 3D support now (ATI's next gen appears to be going here soon anyway).

Why do you say it is disappointing? Consider what it is succeeding
---GT 220

There was no chance in hell Nvidia was going to call it GT 420

 

[Qbah]

Why do you say it is disappointing? Consider what it is succeeding
---GT 220

There was no chance in hell Nvidia was going to call it GT 420

Consider what you can get from the competition for $80 - a Radeon HD5670 which utterly destroys a GT430 in everything.

 

[apoppin]

Forget the competition for just a minute
(and especially consider people who actually want PhysX, CUDA and 3D Vision & BluRay)

. . . Nvidia is succeeding the GT 220 (MSRP = $80) with GT 430 (MSRP = $80)
----What is not to like about that?

Consider what you can get from the competition for $80 - a Radeon HD5670 which utterly destroys a GT430 in everything.

 

[Bateluer]

Was looking at one of these as a small upgrade to one of my test machines. Going to go with that Radeon 5670 now.

 

[Sylvanas]

Forget the competition for just a minute
(and especially consider people who actually want PhysX, CUDA and 3D Vision & BluRay)

. . . Nvidia is succeeding the GT 220 (MSRP = $80) with GT 430 (MSRP = $80)
----What is not to like about that?

In doing so ignoring every metric that determines if it is a good buy. For $80 ($59 MIR) you can buy a GT240. The competition makes a similar and superior card for the same ballpark price. This is the information available to the consumer when they decide to make a purchase. (You mention PhysX and CUDA which the 240 is better at anyway).

So I still stand by my original statement that this card only makes sense if 3D and HDMI 1.4a are relevant to you now. It may be better than a 220, but that isn't saying much.

 

[Qbah]

Forget the competition for just a minute
(and especially consider people who actually want PhysX, CUDA and 3D Vision & BluRay)

. . . Nvidia is succeeding the GT 220 (MSRP = $80) with GT 430 (MSRP = $80)
----What is not to like about that?

Did you see the gains over a GT220? It's what, 20% tops? This is not a gaming card, so what exactly can it do better?

EDIT: Okay, I was a bit too harsh. It is faster than a GT220, quite considerably. But you have to compare it to what the market offers at the same price now. A GT240 and a HD5670. There's no contest here.

3D Vision? On this card? A GTX480 chokes on plenty of stuff in 3D Vision. For normal Blu-Ray 3D movies you can get a G210 and it will still be fine. Or a 9400GT. You don't spend $80 bucks on a card that's not suited for gaming but HTPC use... Unless you can get suckered into buying one (as I guess the green team hopes).

EDIT: Proof

PhysX? Seriously? A 96SP 9600GSO Keys tested was the minimum recommended for PhysX - and that was in Batman, not really loaded with PhysX things. This one is so much slower it's not funny. It barely edges out a 48SP GT220...

People who would like to play around with CUDA - here I can agree. Though they might as well add a few more bucks and grab something they can game on. Or grab a G210 to check it out and then commit to a much faster card that can actually see improvement over regular CPU applications (GTS450+).

And the moment I stop looking at competition is the moment I will get ripped off. $80 for a GT220 was theft in broad daylight anyway, the price those cards debuted at was laughably high for what they offered.

Again, why would your average consumer bother with this card? It has absolutely nothing to offer over current offerings. It actually falls incredibly short when compared to them.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Although the performance of the 430 was a bit dissapointing, it actually delivers where it counts, in my opinion. Although ATs article made a big deal about 'load' power, the reality that 95% of the time, the system sits idle. So if it is 7 watts less on idle for 23 out of 24 hours per day, then the 10 watt increase over the 5570 on load is quite meaningless, not to mention that the 'load' they put on the GPU was more than most people will ever put on theirs, ever.

I don't see anyone purchasing this card to play games, so the performance aspect of this card doesn't seem like a deal breaker to me. Of course the card can play games, the reality is that people are not going to purchase this card for that reason, at least I hope not... And if they do, then good for them, I am sure they will enjoy it because their gaming standards are already low by considering a card like the 430 or 5570.

For an HTPC, this is a great card.

 

[SickBeast]

It'll be interesting to see if Fusion's GPU can destroy cards like this. If it does, then NV and their board partners are in serious trouble. I'd like to know what percentage of their profits come from low end cards like this.

 

[apoppin]

Did i see it? i reviewed it for my tech site.

It is about 50% faster than GT 220 which puts in in-line with other Fermi successors to GT200b lineup. No it is not a "great" gaming card because it is aimed at the mainstream gamer who is at 1440x900 resolution and low/med details in newer games.

It is aimed at an upgrade over IG and also GT 220. In that case, they succeeded.

i am referring to 3D BluRay playback via HDMI 1.4. Best Buy and Nvidia will no doubt partner up and sell 3D TVs and systems powered by Nvidia at demo kiosks there.

It does not aim at the same market that HD 5400-5600 has. It has no SLI so it does not even do 2D Surround - its strengths are multi-media and light gaming.

ACCORDING TO NVIDIA, using a GT 430 as a dedicated PhysX card paired with a GTX 480 is faster than a GTX 480 paired with a GT 9800. No worries, i am going to examine that claim in Part 2 of my own GT 430 review.

Did you see the gains over a GT220? It's what, 20% tops? This is not a gaming card, so what exactly can it do better?

EDIT: Okay, I was a bit too harsh. It is faster than a GT220, quite considerably. But you have to compare it to what the market offers at the same price now. A GT240 and a HD5670. There's no contest here.

3D Vision? On this card? A GTX480 chokes on plenty of stuff in 3D Vision. For normal Blu-Ray 3D movies you can get a G210 and it will still be fine. Or a 9400GT. You don't spend $80 bucks on a card that's not suited for gaming but HTPC use... Unless you can get suckered into buying one (as I guess the green team hopes).

EDIT: Proof

PhysX? Seriously? A 96SP 9600GSO Keys tested was the minimum recommended for PhysX - and that was in Batman, not really loaded with PhysX things. This one is so much slower it's not funny. It barely edges out a 48SP GT220...

People who would like to play around with CUDA - here I can agree. Though they might as well add a few more bucks and grab something they can game on. Or grab a G210 to check it out and then commit to a much faster card that can actually see improvement over regular CPU applications (GTS450+).

And the moment I stop looking at competition is the moment I will get ripped off. $80 for a GT220 was theft in broad daylight anyway, the price those cards debuted at was laughably high for what they offered.

Again, why would your average consumer bother with this card? It has absolutely nothing to offer over current offerings. It actually falls incredibly short when compared to them.

 

[Nintendesert]

Pretty disappointing, oh well.

 

[MrK6]

It'll be interesting to see if Fusion's GPU can destroy cards like this. If it does, then NV and their board partners are in serious trouble. I'd like to know what percentage of their profits come from low end cards like this.

That's what I'm thinking. If AMD plays its cards right with Fusion they'll have the possibility to make a killing in the HTPC market. Intel is sorely lacking in the GPU department, and if AMD gets off their duffs and really embraces features and quality with their on-chip GPU's, well, it could be great.

 

[ZipSpeed]

Kind of disappointed the 430 isn't faster than the 240 in Folding@home and draws almost the exact power consumption. For $40 after MIR, the 240 is still the best PPD per watt for Folders on a budget.

 

[OCGuy]

That's what I'm thinking. If AMD plays its cards right with Fusion they'll have the possibility to make a killing in the HTPC market. Intel is sorely lacking in the GPU department, and if AMD gets off their duffs and really embraces features and quality with their on-chip GPU's, well, it could be great.

Intel currently owns the market with horrible integrated. They are about to get better with SB. I dont think they are too worried.

 

[Wag]

What you guys are forgetting is that the GT240 can't bitstream audio, the GT430 can, for that reason alone it makes it more appropriate for the HTPC market. Plus HTPC builders generally prefer passively cooled cards.

 

[MrK6]

Intel currently owns the market with horrible integrated. They are about to get better with SB. I dont think they are too worried.

Who cares if Intel is worried or not? How big is the HTPC market anyway? I'm talking about AMD having a chance to offer a great product that no one else yet has stepped up to offer.