nathris

I still can't believe the level of ignorance on this subject. Its right up there with people still asking me where we moved the eggs, 8 months after we moved them!

I'm going to try my best to spell it out clearly, so we can hopefully end the whole "GTS 250 is just a rebranded 8800GT" nonsense. (Seriously, I think it should be an infractable offense)





I don't want this to erupt into a flame war, this is simply a historical account. Yes nVidia screwed up, but its in the past now (hopefully ).

To start, here's a graph for all of the TL;DR people:





Now we go indepth with the G92 family...

8800GT

The 8800GT was nVidia's response to ATI's HD 3800s. The G80 core was shrunk to 65nm, the shaders count was dropped to 112 the whole thing was stuck on a 256bit memory bus in an attempt to cut costs so that nVidia could compete with the HD 3870. The only mistake they made was the naming, since the 8800GT was faster than the 8800GTS 640.

8800GTS

The 8800GTS was released shortly after the 8800GT in response to the upcoming HD 3870 X2. With the full 128 stream processors it was very close in performance to the 8800GTX for a fraction of the price. Again they made a mistake in the naming, as the only way most consumers could distinguish between the G80 based 8800GTS and the G92 based 8800GTS was the memory size. This was a problem because the slower G80 version had more memory than the newer G92, leading consumers to believe that more memory = higher performance.


8800GS

With the 8800GT doing well against the HD 3870, nVidia released the 8800GS in order to fight the ultra-affordable HD 3850. To do this they dropped the shader count down to 96, the level of the old 8800GTS, and put the whole thing on a 192bit bus. Unfortunately, with the 8800GT doing so well this card never caught on.

9600GSO

This is a straight rebrand of the 8800GS. Likely this was an attempt to increase sales, by presenting it as a "new" product. Unfortunately they also released a G94 under the same name, but with half the shaders and nowhere near the performance.


9800GTX

The 9800GTX was released in response to pressure from the upcoming HD 4000 series. The 9800GTX was a linear rebrand of the 8800GTS, with a slight clock speed bump and faster GDDR3 memory. This card attracted a lot of negative attention and probably should have never been released.

9800GTX+

Unfortunately for nVidia, they underestimated the power of the HD 4800s, and the HD 4850 ended up significantly faster than the 9800GTX. The 9800GTX+ is a die shrunk version of the 9800GTX with fast enough clock speeds to compete with the HD 4850. This card is basically a response to the lack of a mid to low end on the newer GT200 die.

9800GT

This card should never have been released. At the start it was completely identical to the 8800GT in every aspect. Later on they shrunk the die to 55nm, but did not change the name or the clocks, leaving consumers in the dark. The only reason it was released was to fill in the gap between the 9600GT and the 9800GTX+.

GTS 250

This card was released in response to price drops on the HD 4800s. The core on this card is exactly the same as the 9800GTX+. To their credit, nVidia did improve on the overall design of the card and managed to significantly cut the power consumption, even to the point where they could remove a PCIe power connector. They also adopted the 1GB memory standard that the HD 4850 and 4870 had moved to. Unfortunately it is still a rebrand, and uses the GT200 naming scheme to mislead customers into thinking its new tech.


So what went wrong?

I think we can trace this all the way back to the 8800GT. Despite the G92 core, it was an 8 series product. nVidia likely felt that it would be wrong to start a new series without a card to replace their flagship 8800 Ultra. This started the chain reaction of rebrands that we all love to hate:

The 8800GT should have started it's life as the 9800GT, and the 8800GTS should have become the 9800GTS. Already we've eliminated two rebrands and a lot of naming confusion. Being 9 series cards, the 9800GT and 9800GTS are clearly faster than the 8800GTS, and sporting the GTS tag, the 9800GTS could be viewed as being slower than the 8800GTX. When the 55nm G92 came out it could have come in as the 9800GTX, which identifies it as being faster than the 8800GTX, and the improved version would have been the 9800GTX+, or some other GTX variant.

And there you have it. No rebrands, only revisions, which are perfectly acceptable.


I think the above is mostly accurate. I typed it up fairly quickly though, so don't hesitate to correct any mistakes (provided you have proof).

__________________

zomgiwin

wow, so i'm not the only one raging about the ignorance i've been reading today.

__________________

Unknownm

Don't forget to add the G92 9600GT 9600GSO. Even though it wasn't a rebrand (Don't think) it's still a G92

__________________
Youtube: Audiotranceable

meticadpa

This is going in my sig.

__________________

zomgiwin

... 9600GT is g94 man...
its just a slightly revised g92 that is amazing with scaling :P

__________________

Lt.JD

Good work Rep+++++++++

No you are not

Yes, it would be worth an add.

__________________

We Are Gr33n Machine

GPU: 4870 OC:http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/bcv5x/

Needs and Wants: 5870 $400 and Megahalems $100

Laptop: MacBookPro 2.4Ghz T8300, 8600GT 256MB, 200GB 5400RPM HDD, 4GB RAM, 15.4" 1440x900

r31ncarnat3d

Good post, in my opinion, and I completely agree with your "solution" to the whole mess.

__________________

G|F.E.A.D|Killa

9600s were G94s

__________________



I heard Ford is coming out with heated bumpers in 2010 so your hands don not get cold while pushing it.

Unknownm

Oops I mean the 9600GSO

__________________
Youtube: Audiotranceable

corky dorkelson

Thanks for this, Nathris. I am still debating the "power savings" of the GTS250/9800GTX+

This card

and

This card

are equal in every way, shape, and form. Both have only one connector.

Thanks for posting this and clearing this up for some.

__________________