<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I'd also seen suggestion that 256MB is insufficient for HD de-int. My
8400GS w/ 256MB wouldn't quite hack it w/ a skip every few seconds. My
9400 w/ 512MB works wonderfully. I don't know if it's the memory for
sure or not, but I did see reports of the 8400 512MB cards not having
the same issues.<br>
<br>
Jeremy<br>
<br>
Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:cb44e8370906181845q5464a1bbj2d392e43b6f9096b@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi
2009/6/19 Johnny <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jarpublic@gmail.com"><jarpublic@gmail.com></a>:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This is basically correct except the family (8xxxx, 9xxx) refer to
different hardware revisions (ie redesigned GPU family), not
necessarily higher clock frequencies. Rather than going 10xxx they
have reset and the newer family of chips are all GTX 2xx. Then the
next numbers (and often suffixes GS, GT, etc) will give you an
indication of relative performance within that family. So in general a
x400 will be more powerful than an x300 or x200 chip (and I think GTX
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">GT > GS for the suffixes). However, making comparisons across
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">different family of chips is difficult without actual tests. So it
would be difficult to say if a 9300 is better than an 8400 for
example. The overall performance depends on the overall architecture,
the clock frequency, the memory, number of shaders, etc., so there
isn't really a single number to look at on a spec sheet that will tell
you which card will perform better.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->