Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Low-cost GeForce 8400GS graphics cards announced

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 24, 2007 1:11:00 PM

Don't know if this has been reported or not, but just read it on Digitimes:

Quote:
Albatron Technology, Biostar, and Walton Chaintech have each announced low-cost graphics cards based on Nvidia's new GeForce 8400GS GPU.

Positioned to target the entry-level market, the 8400GS-based cards feature 450MHz core speeds and 64-bit 256MB DDR2 video memory. Additionally they support Shader Model 4.0 rendering technology, high-resolution DirectX 10 gaming, Microsoft Windows Vista graphics, and HD DVD and Blu-ray video playback.

© DIGITIMES Inc.
June 24, 2007 2:10:06 PM

Quote:
they support Shader Model 4.0 rendering technology, high-resolution DirectX 10 gaming


at what? 2fps?

nice find though. Would make a good general purpose (and no gaming) computer hardware.
June 24, 2007 2:21:38 PM

Damn cheap too, good if you want to get vista operating properly but dont want to game.


IE your quite old.
Related resources
June 24, 2007 3:11:11 PM

DirectX 10.... sort of :wink:
June 24, 2007 3:16:09 PM

Quote:
DirectX 10.... sort of :wink:


It's perfect for DX10...if you like slideshows!
June 24, 2007 3:18:01 PM

So all grandpa's and grandma's go out and buy one of those 8400gs's ... for some good old slideshows :lol: 
June 24, 2007 3:29:29 PM

only point i see to this is even cheaper HTPC
June 24, 2007 8:22:39 PM

Quote:
only point i see to this is even cheaper HTPC

8400GS $69.99 64bit memory interface
8500GT $74.99 after rebate 128bit memory interface
June 24, 2007 9:09:28 PM

they are meant for office pc's wanting to run aero properly and for htpcs to decode hd movies via hd dvd and blue ray.
June 24, 2007 9:15:03 PM

They went to the OEMs 1st so you'll see HP, Dell, etc. putting them on their systems and charging a premium for the option like $100.00 or so.
June 24, 2007 9:15:52 PM

Quote:
and the previous gen couldn't do that how?


'Cause it's old technology, you gotta have the new stuff otherwise it won't work. I thought everyone knew that!

I hope you realize i'm being sarcastic
June 24, 2007 10:18:56 PM

This card supports DX10 and SM4.0 the same way my integrated GeForce6100 supports DX9.0c and SM3.0.

64bit memory interface? Even the X1300's have 128bit interfaces, and are likely to be faster than this.
June 25, 2007 12:04:33 AM

64bit interface??? :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
June 25, 2007 12:30:33 AM

Quote:
64bit interface??? :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 


Yeah, unbelievable. What an embarrassing card. And I guarantee that it will be sold at major retail stores for over $100, touting its DX10 support. I work at Fry's, and I've seen X1950Pro's for $280.
June 25, 2007 12:59:12 AM

If there's one thing that annoys me more it's to hear someone say a low-end graphics card is a "non-gaming card." I don't think people realize just how many games out there don't require that much graphics power, and are greatly enjoyable.

That being said, when it gets to around $90, for nVidia cards, the 8600GT will be a great buy. :lol: 
June 25, 2007 6:13:11 AM

Quote:
and the previous gen couldn't do that how?


Because it supports DX10 8O

Idk maybe it makes vista run better with visuals or something. IMO I think its a good card if you dont play computer games. Not everyone does.

Well.. everyone on here does lol...
June 25, 2007 6:34:41 AM

It's not gonna make Vista look any better. If you don't play computer games, then any integrated graphics is fine too.

But, like you said, everyone here does play games, and to us this card is... bad.
June 25, 2007 6:42:31 AM

actually vista doesnt run well with integrated. hence this card.
June 25, 2007 6:53:51 AM

Quote:
actually vista doesnt run well with integrated. hence this card.


It does actually, it runs perfectly fine on any integrated DX9 card that has DEDICATED (none of this shared business) RAM.
June 25, 2007 3:58:24 PM

Quote:
actually vista doesnt run well with integrated. hence this card.


I had Vista running on my integrated, shared memory, GeForce6100. It looked no worse than on a machine with a high-end card, and I had no lag whatsoever even with Aero on. My only gripe was that it left my system with around 900MB of RAM, so running a bunch of stuff could slow my PC down, but that wasn't due to lack of graphics power.
June 25, 2007 5:47:18 PM

theres a very big difference with a 6100 with DEDICATED memory and the vast majority of computer users who have the latest and greatest intel integrated. It would be easier for a person using a dell/hp machine to drop in a card like this than replace a motherboard with a 6100 so that they would be able to run aero. also a 6100 does not decode hd (i.e. blue ray) as well as an 8400.
June 25, 2007 6:44:29 PM

Laugh all you like, but that's one sweet card! My local Wal-Mart still has a single NVidia FX 5600 on the shelf... that 8400GS will run all over that card. I'm not sure the exact price on that 5600, but if I remember correctly it's over $100... I am NOT kidding. Wal-Mart has some seriously jacked up prices on old hardware.
June 25, 2007 8:38:23 PM

Quote:
theres a very big difference with a 6100 with DEDICATED memory and the vast majority of computer users who have the latest and greatest intel integrated. It would be easier for a person using a dell/hp machine to drop in a card like this than replace a motherboard with a 6100 so that they would be able to run aero. also a 6100 does not decode hd (i.e. blue ray) as well as an 8400.


The newer Dell's come with the 6150 board with the following base options:
integrated: standard
7300LE: + $50.00
X1300Pro: + $90.00

Now they'll probably have the 8400GS at ?
June 25, 2007 9:06:47 PM

Good god... will someone stop nVidia before they get down to a 32MB dx10 card?
June 25, 2007 9:50:33 PM

yeah the newer dells have the 6150. i wonder about all those older ones. lets see. a new dell is about 300-400 dollars. this card costs about 60 dollars. im not arguing about how good it is but there is a market for it. and to a consumer who doesn't know a whole lot about graphics cards, a 8400 sounds a helluva lot better than a 7300LE and cheaper than a x1300pro as it will be advertised as a 256mb card and dx10.
June 25, 2007 10:03:54 PM

Quote:
the vast majority of computer users who have the latest and greatest intel integrated.


The latest integrated intel is suprisingly good, runs the source engine suprisingly well.
June 25, 2007 10:28:16 PM

The source engine is not the most demanding thing in the world. so are you saying that intel integrated is better than the 8400gs at all tasks concerned?
June 26, 2007 4:51:25 AM

Read my post again, carefully. I do believe I mentioned that my GeForce6100 used SHARED RAM.
June 26, 2007 4:56:38 AM

and im talking about the intel integrated not nvidia's. did you read my posts?
June 26, 2007 5:07:55 AM

Yes, I did, and even fairly recent Intel integrated graphics will run Vista fine. Even those with shared ram.
May 15, 2009 12:07:11 AM

To clarify for everyone, why anything the 8xxx series or better??? nVidia did not include any MPEG4 or H264 <blue ray> decoding hardware on any graphics card until the 8500GT cards. Which immediately also put the 8600GT in this category. However at the same time the 8700 and 8800 did NOT have these specialized HW blocks. Was not for gamers, but for HTPCs.

The difference being that if you played any thing in BluRay, HD-DVD, Flash, Quicktime, HULU, etc.. that used any MPEG4 derived codec, you would see VASTLY increased CPU utilization if you didn't have these cards. Has very little to due to memory, or GPU speed.

If you use MPEG4 video, you must have a 8400GS, 8500, 8600 or a 9xxx series card to take advantage of this. NO 6xxx or 7xxx cards have these features, and about 1/2 of the 87xx series or higher end gaming cards do not have these blocks as well.

Simply put the 8400GS for MPEG4 or derived codecs will outperform any 7950GT OC 1GB series cards.
a c 362 U Graphics card
May 15, 2009 12:50:31 AM

Why was a nearly 2 year old thread dug up?
a b U Graphics card
May 15, 2009 12:53:23 AM

Different people are searching for different things so it's not really their fault.

Threads should be automatically locked after 1 year without a reply imo.
!