Nvidia Ships the GeForce 8600 GTS
Posted 04/17/07 at 08:15:16AM | by  

Michael Brown

As Nvidia continues its long-rumored expansion of its DirectX 10 GPU lineup into the budget videocard territory, the most significant feature of these new parts is the one detail that Nvidia managed to keep secret: a new video-processing engine that renders these parts more powerful in terms of HD-video decoding than even the mighty 8800 GTX.

Nvidia claims this next-generation PureVideo HD engine renders the GPU capable of offloading all H.264 video-decode chores from the CPU, enabling even entry-level PCs to play Blu-ray and HD DVD content without chugging. The new GeForce 8600 GTS is also the first GPU to support dual-link HDCP decryption, solving a big problem with displaying high-definition video on 30-inch panels; this feature is optional on the 8600 GT (it's left up to the OEM to implement). HDMI support is optional on both cards. (here again, it's up to the OEM to implement).

In order to bring DX 10 capabilities down to the $200 to $250 price range, Nvidia has drastically reduced the number of stream processors in the 8600 GTS (available now) and the even less-expensive 8600 GT (which will sell for $140 to $160 when it arrives at retail May 1): These chips each have just 32 floating-point units, compared to the 8800 GTS's 96 and the 8800 GTX's 128. Both new GPUs are manufactured using an 80nm fabrication process, and each has 289 million transistors. Clock speeds differentiate the 8600 GT from the 8600 GTS, with stock core clock speeds of 540- and 675MHz, respectively. Both cards have 256MB of GDDR3 memory running at 700MHz and 1GHz, respectively. These GPUs have rather narrow 128-bit memory interfaces compared to the 256-bit interfaces on the 8800-series.

Of course, you can expect the third-party OEMs who actually build retail product based on these GPUs to push the envelope in terms of clock speeds, as Asus has done with the EN8600 GTS Top reviewed here. The GPU on this card is clocked at 745MHz and its memory runs at 1.145GHz.

 

Asus' card delivered very respectable performance for the price, with a single card serving up the punishing Shader Model 3.0 tests 3DMark06 Game 1 and Game 2 at 7.3 and 8.7fps, respectively. More importantly, the card proved able to render Quake 4 playable at 1920x1200 widescreen resolution, delivering the game at 41.2fps. It had a tougher time with FEAR at that high resolution, scoring an average frame rate of just 25fps. We're thinking of adding Chris Taylor's new RTS Supreme Commander to our benchmark lineup, but you probably won't want to play it on an 8600 GTS—at least not at 1920x1200—because it was only able to play that resource-intensive game at 18.7fps.

The situation improved when we dropped an identical Asus card in for SLI benchmarking. Quake 4 jumped up to a very playable 75.6fps, while our FEAR and Supreme Commander scores also nearly doubled, to 43 and 32.4fps, respectively.

 

Nvidia also announced an even less-expensive DX 10 GPU, the GeForce 8500 GT, which will sell for between $80 and $100. When you step down this low, however, you'll get just 16 stream processors and even lower clock speeds than the 8600 GT, with a core running at just 450MHz. Oddly enough, Nvidia's partners will be able to offer the board with either 256- or 512MB of DDR2 memory running at 900MHz (with the same 128-bit memory interface). But if you're looking for a powerful HD video decoder, this part will have the same engine as its more costly cousins.

View / Add Comment(s)


-ADVERTISEMENT-
RELATED CATEGORIES
RELATED ARTICLES
Nvidia Ships First DirectX 10 GPUs DirectX 10 and you: How to survive the awesomeness that will come to be.
Asus EN8800 GTX The first wave of DirectX 10 cards are here, but just how well do they preform with DX10?
BFG GeForce 8800 GTS (640MB) Power users contemplating the purchase of BFG's GeForce 8800 GTS face the same conundrum as those purchasing a card based on the 8800 GTX: No one knows how either product will perform with DirectX 10.
Who’s Killing Your RAM? Reports are coming in that the 680i chipset killing enthusiast RAM, but nVidia says it's not to blame.
XFX Amends Lifetime Warranty, Gives Green Light to OC Lifetime warranties are becoming increasingly flexible in the videocard arena, but Paul Lilly makes a plea for more substance and less fluff.
ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT Benchmarks Is AMD raising the white flag? Or is the HD 2900 XT a red cape to wave in front of Nvidia?

Comments

login or register to post comments
Different strokes for different folks
Submitted by VoodooChicken on Tue, 2007-04-17 07:47.

I'm glad nVidia is continuing development and meeting release dates. I have an 8800 GTS, and I've been satisfied with it. Playing HD video hasn't been a concern yet, and my monitor is only 20" so this new 8600 GTS doesn't make me feel like I jumped the gun too soon. These new cards seem like they're for people that really want to run HD off their PC instead of stand alone. It seems similar to the situation where people buy iMacs just because someone gave them an iPod for Christmas.
As for current and even future gaming, I'll wait for the proverbial 9800 (nVidia, not ATI of course)

--------------------------------------------------
Look behind you! A THREE-headed monkey!!!!!!!!

8600GT vs 7600GT
Submitted by johnny3144 on Tue, 2007-04-17 12:32.

umm... does this mean that the 8600GT have almost no performance increase than 7600GT aside from directX 10?

Seems so. According to the
Submitted by zioburosky13 on Tue, 2007-04-17 17:12.

According to the benchmark done by AnantTec.com

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2970&p=1

Gfx 8600 GTS is 10-15% slower than Gfx 7950 and Radeon X1950Pro but 20% faster than Gfx7600.
Given that most next-gen mid-range video card always surpass their predecessor,
I wonder if it's a driver issue or the lack of DX-10 game benchmark that hurts it.
For now, my money is on Gfx 8800GTS until I see some improvement or another card release.

getting the most bang for my buck
Submitted by buzz272727 on Tue, 2007-07-17 12:14.

I was shopping for a single or set of new video cards and I am a little boggled. It seems that I would get the most prerformance out of buying two seperate cards, like a pair of to the Leadtek PX8600GTS 256MB GeForce 8600GTS 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 cards at 675 mhz core clock and a 2000 memory clock for a total of 1350mhz core and 4000 memory priced on newegg for around $300, than if I purchased a single ASUS EN8800GTS 640M GeForce 8800GTS 640MB 320-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 with a 500 mhz core clocK and a 3200 memory clock which is priced on newegg for $306.

Looking at the specs it looks like the two Ledtech cards are the better value, but I know that benckmark testing often proves vendor specifications wrong.



- Advertisement -