Nvidia rolls out $80 GeForce GT 430 for HTPC enthusiasts

[OCGuy]

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.

I think you might have misunderstood me. I was pointing out that if Intel already owns so much of the market with their current lineup of terrible integrated graphics, and Sandy Bridge improves on it as much as suspected......they don't really have much to fear as far as Fusion taking marketshare.

 

[ScorcherDarkly]

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.

Intel's i3 and i5 600 series have graphics on-die right now. Intel's Sandy Bridge will have an APU, just like Fusion. Fusion is not unique, and will likely be released after Sandy Bridge.

 

[3DVagabond]

I think you might have misunderstood me. I was pointing out that if Intel already owns so much of the market with their current lineup of terrible integrated graphics, and Sandy Bridge improves on it as much as suspected......they don't really have much to fear as far as Fusion taking marketshare.

Don't be so sure about that. Complacency has irreparably damaged bigger companies than Intel. The US auto industry comes to mind.

 

[AtenRa]

Ok lets see,

GT430 is replacing the GT220, it had to be at $69 and not $79 but I guess you pay a premium for the audio bit-stream and for the HDMI 1.4a witch make the GT430 the only card in the sub $100 category today to be able to play Blu Ray 3D.

I don’t think we will see AMDs 66xx series or 65xx before Xmas 2010, so until that time the GT430 will be the HTPC card to get.

GT440 most likely will be with GDDR-5 and it will be much faster so for everyone that wants better performance and HDMI 1.4 wait until GT440 or 66xx/65xx.

 

[Keysplayr]

Don't be so sure about that. Complacency has irreparably damaged bigger companies than Intel. The US auto industry comes to mind.

In what respect are you observing complacency from Intel? Complacency means doing nothing, standing still, not caring. All Intel has been doing is improving over their already impressive products. Now soon to release "Fusion" of their own.

And I have serious doubts a SB from Intel would compete against a discrete GT430 even at light gaming and especially applications.

 

[FalseChristian]

Since it can't compete with the Radeon HD 5570 at the same price point then drop the price to $50 and sell a shit-load to unsuspecting newbies.

 

[HurleyBird]

And I have serious doubts a SB from Intel would compete against a discrete GT430 even at light gaming and especially applications.

I don't. Sure, GT430 is faster, but it's not worth 80 dollars over SB/Fusion graphics (maybe $40). It will also most definitely lose to Llano. SB graphics will be good enough for 80-90% of consumers for a year (and for most of those it is not good enough for, such as enthusiasts, GT430 is not good enough either), while Llano will be good for 95%.

 

[Lonyo]

In what respect are you observing complacency from Intel? Complacency means doing nothing, standing still, not caring. All Intel has been doing is improving over their already impressive products. Now soon to release "Fusion" of their own.

And I have serious doubts a SB from Intel would compete against a discrete GT430 even at light gaming and especially applications.

Considering approximate performance from the AT preview, it puts SB at the level of the 5450, while the GT430 is 5570 sort of level.
So it's still going to be at least one step up from integrated, unless they put the double powered GPU into desktop SB.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/7

 

[Keysplayr]

I don't. Sure, GT430 is faster, but it's not worth 80 dollars over SB/Fusion graphics (maybe $40). It will also most definitely lose to Llano. SB graphics will be good enough for 80-90% of consumers for a year (and for most of those it is not good enough for, such as enthusiasts, GT430 is not good enough either), while Llano will be good for 95%.

Please direct me to SB graphics benches, and Llano as well so that we may compare.

 

[Keysplayr]

Considering approximate performance from the AT preview, it puts SB at the level of the 5450, while the GT430 is 5570 sort of level.
So it's still going to be at least one step up from integrated, unless they put the double powered GPU into desktop SB.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/7

All benches done at 1024x768? Why? What PC system for sale today even has a minimum monitor option with less than 12x10?

 

[LtGoonRush]

Considering approximate performance from the AT preview, it puts SB at the level of the 5450, while the GT430 is 5570 sort of level.
So it's still going to be at least one step up from integrated, unless they put the double powered GPU into desktop SB.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/7

All indications are that those benches were performed with the 12 EU version of Sandy Bridge graphics, the Intel HD Graphics 200 processor, which is featured on the Core i5 2500 and higher processors (and, from what we know, all mobile processors).

The decisions nVidia have made with the GT 430 are disappointing, because a GT 430 with 8 ROPs and GDDR5 could have potentially been performance competitive, but as it stands they're desperately trying to sell the card solely on its 3D features. It's also insulting that, at launch, image quality for HTPC applications is so much worse than the HD 5570.

 

[ZimZum]

All benches done at 1024x768? Why? What PC system for sale today even has a minimum monitor option with less than 12x10?

These aren't gaming cards. For the most part the gaming benches are irrelevant. They only serve to show you the cards relative performance to each other. Comparing them at resolutions where the FPS will be in the low single digits is pointless. As long as they can playback HD video smoothly they will be adequate for the market segment they were designed to fill.

As for the 430, much like the 5830 earlier this year, theres nothing wrong with the card itself its just priced horribly and there are much better options at the price point it currently occupies.

 

[Keysplayr]

These aren't gaming cards. For the most part the gaming benches are irrelevant. They only serve to show you the cards relative performance to each other. Comparing them at resolutions where the FPS will be in the low single digits is pointless. As long as they can playback HD video smoothly they will be adequate for the market segment they were designed to fill.

As for the 430, much like the 5830 earlier this year, theres nothing wrong with the card itself its just priced horribly and there are much better options at the price point it currently occupies.

If not comparing the gaming power, what then is the metric you are using to deem it's price point horrible? What are you using to compare?

 

[HurleyBird]

Please direct me to SB graphics benches, and Llano as well so that we may compare.

Already linked on this page, and yes, GT 430 is a lot faster. That much we agree on. My point is, if SB graphics is both *good enough* for the majority of computer users, and *free*, an $80 add in card becomes a tough sell. And for those people where SB graphics still isn't enough, a good chunk of those people will also see GT430 as "not good enough" as well.

As for Llano benchmarks, come on keys, you know there aren't any leaks yet

However, assuming that everyone who has been saying 400SPs for the last half a year is right, I can't see this matchup ending in GT 430's favour. GT430 has already been pummeled by a 400SP card, and while the CPU graphics in Llano will have less bandwidth, I don't think performance is going to decrease the 35-50% needed to get down to GT430 level, and even then you're comparing an $80 add in card to a "free" solution.

 

[AtenRa]

First, Llano will not be released in 2010 but H1 2011 and most probably Q2 2011 meaning GT430 has 6 more months in front of it.

Second, SBs graphics are not DX-11 and we don’t know yet if it will have HDMI 1.4. GT430 can play every game even in DX-11 at 1280 resolution something SB will not be able.

Third, GT430 is only available with DDR-3 as of now, with GDDR-5 will get a nice performance boost. The problem is the price but with 512MBs of GDDR-5 at the same price I think it will be much better.

 

[BenSkywalker]

This card can handle bitstream over HDMI and does 3D BluRay.

For a set top 3D BluRay player you are out ~$130.

but as it stands they're desperately trying to sell the card solely on its 3D features.

In all seriousness nVidia has been pushing 3D technology for years and now the general consumer electronics industry has said- 'you know what nVidia, you were right!' and nVidia is out of line for making a product targetting the segment they have spent years promoting? Seriously? AV enthusiast's platform of choice is shifting over to a technology they have been working on pushing for years. Like it or not, this is a *HUGE* win for nVidia's technology. Personally, I don't like 3D tech as they do it and I never have(you can check my posting history)- it gives me a headache. That said, they have every major electronics manufacturer and almost every major studio now behind the technology they have been developing and pushing for years. Them releasing a product based around that technology seems to be an absolute no brainer. If you don't like it, like me, don't buy it. To say that they are only relying on a technology they dragged into the mainstream is out of line IMO.

If in 2015 TV companies decide that wrap around displays using multiple displays is the way to go and ATi releases a HTPC card that focuses on that and skimps on gaming performance are people going to bash them too?

Meh, for my $80 if I really was worried about gaming performance-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131365

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121381


Green or red, $80 AMR and smashes the hell out of the 5670 no matter which one you choose.

 

[HurleyBird]

Third, GT430 is only available with DDR-3 as of now, with GDDR-5 will get a nice performance boost. The problem is the price but with 512MBs of GDDR-5 at the same price I think it will be much better.

GDDR5 may or may not be bottlenecked by lack of ROPs.

On the other hand, since this is a Fermi derivative, maybe GF108 is another salvage part with half of it's ROPs fused off?

 

[StrangerGuy]

HDTV penetration is only 65% by mid-2010 (US only) after like an eternity of transitioning and the industry still wants 3D to be mainstream which requires a new TV and HDMI 1.4? Good luck to them. I'm sure people will be queueing up for them in droves.

 

[Janooo]

This card can handle bitstream over HDMI and does 3D BluRay.

For a set top 3D BluRay player you are out ~$130.



In all seriousness nVidia has been pushing 3D technology for years and now the general consumer electronics industry has said- 'you know what nVidia, you were right!' and nVidia is out of line for making a product targetting the segment they have spent years promoting? Seriously? AV enthusiast's platform of choice is shifting over to a technology they have been working on pushing for years. Like it or not, this is a *HUGE* win for nVidia's technology. Personally, I don't like 3D tech as they do it and I never have(you can check my posting history)- it gives me a headache. That said, they have every major electronics manufacturer and almost every major studio now behind the technology they have been developing and pushing for years. Them releasing a product based around that technology seems to be an absolute no brainer. If you don't like it, like me, don't buy it. To say that they are only relying on a technology they dragged into the mainstream is out of line IMO.

If in 2015 TV companies decide that wrap around displays using multiple displays is the way to go and ATi releases a HTPC card that focuses on that and skimps on gaming performance are people going to bash them too?

Meh, for my $80 if I really was worried about gaming performance-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814131365

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814121381


Green or red, $80 AMR and smashes the hell out of the 5670 no matter which one you choose.

Would you be happy with its image quality?

 

[Phynaz]

GT430 can play every game even in DX-11 at 1280 resolution

At 3 FPS.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Would you be happy with its image quality?

What were the problems? Based on what I saw the 430 was neck and neck with the 5570 except on one stream where it got 0s across the board. I'd love to be able to offer something more, but I can't given the rather shocking lack of information available(we can get benchmarks for a ton of games which tells us HTPC cards suck at gaming *what a shocker!* but no analysis on something that is important?).

HDTV penetration is only 65% by mid-2010 (US only) after like an eternity of transitioning and the industry still wants 3D to be mainstream which requires a new TV and HDMI 1.4?

From the article you linked-

The study also says 23 percent of Americans plan to buy an HDTV in the next 12 months.

As far as how mainstream it is, do you honestly think HTPC setups are mainstream? People I know IRL who have a HTPC that don't post on these forums? 0

 

[MrK6]

Man, lots of great points have been brought up in this thread.

Intel's i3 and i5 600 series have graphics on-die right now. Intel's Sandy Bridge will have an APU, just like Fusion. Fusion is not unique, and will likely be released after Sandy Bridge.

Fusion is unique in that it's coming from a company that (now) has tons of experience with GPU design. TBH, CPU's are overly powerful most tasks today, and multithreading is making up for raw horsepower, and therefore I think it's the GPU portion of these chips that's going to make or break a buy. Anyway, as I said, I think AMD is in a position here to really make something special by having more GPU than CPU on their Llano etc. parts, especially if they load it up with features, which Intel sorely lacks.

In what respect are you observing complacency from Intel? Complacency means doing nothing, standing still, not caring. All Intel has been doing is improving over their already impressive products. Now soon to release "Fusion" of their own.

And I have serious doubts a SB from Intel would compete against a discrete GT430 even at light gaming and especially applications.

Intel tends to get over-focused. I think that's what bit them in the backside when the Athlon 64 came out (they were over-focused on NetBurst) and now it might bite them for neglecting graphics. And I'm not saying this is by choice either, as they're really behind in graphics development compared to AMD. I think SB is going to be a fantastic chip (I'm getting one) and for many people the graphics are more than enough. However, if AMD releases Llano etc. that has decent CPU performance and a GPU that's twice as fast (for instance), well, there's a lot of HTPC'ers, mobile gamers, OEMs, etc. who are going to be looking that way.

I don't. Sure, GT430 is faster, but it's not worth 80 dollars over SB/Fusion graphics (maybe $40). It will also most definitely lose to Llano. SB graphics will be good enough for 80-90% of consumers for a year (and for most of those it is not good enough for, such as enthusiasts, GT430 is not good enough either), while Llano will be good for 95%.

Exactly what I'm saying. These new chips from AMD and Intel are going to be eating away at the discrete lower-end more and more so that it's going to get much more competitive. That said, a part like the GT430 priced at $80 doesn't cut it against current competition unless you're one of the very few who want 3D, and imagine what will happen come 2011.

 

[Idontcare]

First, Llano will not be released in 2010 but H1 2011 and most probably Q2 2011 meaning GT430 has 6 more months in front of it.

Fuad claims his internal sources at AMD are now expecting Llano to come out no earlier than Q3 2011.

http://www.fudzilla.com/notebooks/item/20400-llano-to-come-in-q3-2011

Something went wrong with the first tape out and it will take some six to nine months to fix the chip and ramp up production.

 

[ZimZum]

If not comparing the gaming power, what then is the metric you are using to deem it's price point horrible? What are you using to compare?

Because you can get a card that does what the 430 does for half its price. At its current price point you can get a 5670 which is a viable budget gaming solution. The 430 is worse at pretty much everything than the cards its competing with.

From AT review:

GT 430 simply isn’t competitive with AMD’s 5570 and 5670 in gaming performance, with the latter cleaning the GT 430’s clock every single time. NVIDIA isn’t pushing the GT 430 as a gaming performance card so we aren’t going to recommend it as one. If you need budget gaming, then the only choice to make is to go AMD.

Certainly the GT 430 is a step up from the likes of Intel’s GMA, however the Radeon 5570 has an even bigger advantage over the GT 430. If image quality absolutely matters to you, then the Radeon 5570 is definitely the card to get for the time being until NVIDIA can spend more time on improving the video capabilities of their drivers.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3973/nvidias-geforce-gt-430/18

 

[Dribble]

Because you can get a card that does what the 430 does for half its price. At its current price point you can get a 5670 which is a viable budget gaming solution. The 430 is worse at pretty much everything than the cards its competing with.

Not everything is about gaming. It has HDMI 1.4, combine that with low power, quiet operation and nvidia's reputation for stable drivers and it becomes the card of choice for the HTPC. This is a perfectly acceptable market to go after - not everyone cares how well it can run crysis.

If you want to game then get a radeon, this is fine too - different markets, different cards.