Overclock.net banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Quote:
Why NVIDIA Did It

To understand the motivation behind NVIDIA's naming and renaming and renaming we have to once again look its approach to GPU design. NVIDIA continued to architect very high end GPUs and allow their technology to, over the course of 9 - 12 months, trickle down to mid range and lower end market segments. AMD stepped in and launched a very competitive performance mainstream part instead of a high end GPU, allowing it to windfall down to lower price points and market segments quicker than NVIDIA could for this generation.

Let's attach some code names shall we?

NVIDIA's flagship, the GT200 GPU used in the GTX 295, 285, 280 and 260, isn't available in a cheaper version yet. AMD's flagship, the RV770, is already more affordable and is available in cheaper versions. NVIDIA has to rely on its last generation GPU, the G92b, to compete in the rest of the market while the lower end GT200 derivatives get ready for production. Rather than continue to ship products with old names to vendors and customers, NVIDIA slaps a new name on an old GPU and hopes to at least provide the appearance of being just as agile and competitive as AMD despite being clearly caught off guard this generation.

Of course, NVIDIA has a case to make. This is their current generation of hardware, and it is practical and useful to maintain a consistent nomenclature so that the general public knows what the product positioning actually is. We agree, only our solution is top to bottom launches in line with new GPU architectures rather than simply changing the name of old parts so that they look shiny and new.

NVIDIA's take on this is also flawed in that it treats customers like idiots and underlines the fundamental issue we have. Do I need a card with a new name on it to believe that it is worthy of my purchase, or can I go read reviews comparing the hardware and learn for myself whether or not any card (regardless of the name) fills my need? Maybe this name change is for people who don't know anything about graphics hardware then. In that case the thing that "sells" the card is the simple fact that NVIDIA has convinced someone that this part is an affordable version of a card from their latest line of products. Saying they need a name change to maintain current naming is essentially admitting that the only reason the name needs to be changed is to mislead uninformed people.

NVIDIA would love to have 40nm GT200 derivatives out today. Until that day comes, we'll get cards that sound like GT200 based products.

Anyway, we haven't previously tested a 1GB 9800 GTX+, and until this announcement their prices haven't been anywhere near reasonable (currently they're up at $200, so the $50 price drop will make a big difference). There is also a slight tweak between the GTS 250 1GB and the 9800 GTX+ 1GB: the memory on the 1GB 9800+ was underclocked by about 9.1%, and the GTS 250 1GB brings clock speed back in line with the 512MB 9800 GTX+. So while the 512MB part doesn't perform any different in any way, we should no longer see any performance degradation in games that don't benefit from memory size but are memory bandwidth sensitive from moving up to 1GB.

Oh, also wide availability won't be until March 10th. Seriously.

Also, not explained until now is the way the new naming scheme will go forward. Now, GTX, GTS, GT and G (as far as we can gather) will indicate performance segment. The number will be the model number and within a performance segment, higher is better. Essentially NVIDIA has swapped the meaning of letters and numbers in their naming. They have also clearly told us that naming will no longer be attached to GPU architecture, but that vendors may somehow still indicate architecture on the box if they so choose. If nothing else, the feature list and specifications will be a guide. Here's to requiring that people read the fine print to know what they're buying.
For What it's Worth

Early last week Charlie over at The Inquirer posted a story saying that a number of reviewers were cut out of the GeForce GTS 250 launch. We felt a bit hurt, by the time the story launched we weren't even asked to be briefed about the GTS 250. Cards had already gone out to other reviewers but we weren't on any lists. Oh, pout.

Magically, a couple of days after Charlie's article we got invited to a NVIDIA briefing and we had a GTS 250 to test. Perhaps NVIDIA was simply uncharacteristically late in briefing us about a new GPU launch. Perhaps NVIDIA was afraid we'd point out that it was nothing more than a 9800 GTX+ that ran a little cooler. Or perhaps we haven't been positive enough about CUDA and PhysX and NVIDIA was trying to punish us.

Who knows what went on at NVIDIA prior to the launch, we're here to review the card, but for what it's worth - thank you Charlie
Original Source,Power consumption and info about the card : http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3523
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
590 Posts
I'm honestly just sick of it; I don't care what their reasoning is. =_=
 

·
Efficiencycionado
Joined
·
5,587 Posts
nvidia sure have the nerves.

now ati should be really thinking of adding cuda/physx so that folding will be better than nvidia cards, the only asset left on why i should go for nvidia.

shame nvidia, shame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by gerikoh
View Post

nvidia sure have the nerves.

now ati should be really thinking of adding cuda/physx so that folding will be better than nvidia cards, the only asset left on why i should go for nvidia.

shame nvidia, shame.

CUDA and PhysX are both proprietary... Nvidia owns them. Unless amd pays a very hefty sum for them (not likely considering they're already in debt) amds not going to get either. Nvidia wouldn't let either of them out of their sight considering they're the only advantage they have against amd at this point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Fysix by ATI...
Lolz
ACUD(Architecture of Compute Unified Device)

Ati is a complete copy cat.
GTX295 ,HD4995...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,928 Posts
turns out charlie is right more than it seems - take that inq flamers.

anyways, that is poor form from them... they need to stop this
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,888 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by gerikoh
View Post

nvidia sure have the nerves.

now ati should be really thinking of adding cuda/physx so that folding will be better than nvidia cards, the only asset left on why i should go for nvidia.

shame nvidia, shame.

cuda would do zilch on ati cards,for one they don't have the hardware for it and two they have had things similar to it ever since they started [email protected] in the first place.ati's folding performance is lower than nvidia for reasons that are not remotely concerned with cuda.
 

·
Nobody
Joined
·
6,467 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by gamervivek View Post
cuda would do zilch on ati cards,for one they don't have the hardware for it and two they have had things similar to it ever since they started [email protected] in the first place.ati's folding performance is lower than nvidia for reasons that are not remotely concerned with cuda.
And why do you say ATi cards can't run CUDA? You do know ATi does have STREAM and that the CUDA has been hacked and ran on ATi cards. http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=14123

Also, last I read, Nvidia has pretty much open sourced CUDA but ATi is the one that won't touch it. But I guess really I don't know since I haven't done it myself, all this is just what I've read.

But yea, back to NV. Name change is bs, I agree it's for the everyday consumer so they are confused and think they are getting new hardware.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,069 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by telamascope View Post
CUDA and PhysX are both proprietary... Nvidia owns them. Unless amd pays a very hefty sum for them (not likely considering they're already in debt) amds not going to get either. Nvidia wouldn't let either of them out of their sight considering they're the only advantage they have against amd at this point.
nvidia already said that they would help ATI implement it for free, because they want it to become the standard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,888 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by rx7racer View Post
And why do you say ATi cards can't run CUDA? You do know ATi does have STREAM and that the CUDA has been hacked and ran on ATi cards. http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=14123

Also, last I read, Nvidia has pretty much open sourced CUDA but ATi is the one that won't touch it. But I guess really I don't know since I haven't done it myself, all this is just what I've read.

But yea, back to NV. Name change is bs, I agree it's for the everyday consumer so they are confused and think they are getting new hardware.
they might run anything on it,i said it won't do anything for folding performance-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA
there are some features that ati cards do not have,iirc IEEE compliance for DP is one of them and of course cuda was written with nvidia gpus in mind so it would have specific instructions for them or some instructions would run better like GTX2xx series have a better cuda support than older gpus and so on.
even though cuda is open sourced it doesn't make sense for ati to run it on their cards when they have their own brook/cal implementations that take advantage of their own hardware,they would be second-best in running CUDA on their cards which mildy put is unacceptable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,667 Posts
Quote:


Fysix by ATI...
Lolz
ACUD(Architecture of Compute Unified Device)

Ati is a complete copy cat.
GTX295 ,HD4995...

That makes so little sense my head is about to burst? How does you listing imaginary technologies and product names that don't even sound alike (GTX295 = HD4995 ***?!?!?) make ATI a copycat?
 

·
Nobody
Joined
·
6,467 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by gamervivek
View Post

they might run anything on it,i said it won't do anything for folding performance-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA
there are some features that ati cards do not have,iirc IEEE compliance for DP is one of them and of course cuda was written with nvidia gpus in mind so it would have specific instructions for them or some instructions would run better like GTX2xx series have a better cuda support than older gpus and so on.
even though cuda is open sourced it doesn't make sense for ati to run it on their cards when they have their own brook/cal implementations that take advantage of their own hardware,they would be second-best in running CUDA on their cards which mildy put is unacceptable.


Oh I agree with ya on that, hence why it has stayed at ground 0(NV).

But if ATi would dump some support into it they could re-write what is necessary, it's not like NV and ATi have complete different technologies and tasks. Only thing that is different essentially is arch. and implementation of rops and tmu's and such. So only ATi could write a correct form, also hence why they defend STREAM. Which I might add they have done horrible on up to this point.

NV is king of folding.
 

·
Snow!
Joined
·
1,248 Posts
Quote:


They have also clearly told us that naming will no longer be attached to GPU architecture, but that vendors may somehow still indicate architecture on the box if they so choose.

That's where the confusion starts for me. Kinda sucks when you could have, lets say the 300 series, and it could have GT300, GT200 and G92b cores all mixed in. I know, this isn't an issue for those of use that are informed and aren't fanboys. If we want a 300 series card with a GT300 core, we know what to buy. But for the many out there that'll buy on impulse and poor word of mouth thinking they are getting new tech because of a new name, kinda shady.

Oh well, if I was to buy a card right now and it was a choice between a GTS250 and GTX9800+ it would of coarse come down to cost and performance. But I get the feeling these "newer" GTS250's will cost more then their twins for close to the same performance, but reviews will be the final word on that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,202 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Darius Silver
View Post

That's where the confusion starts for me. Kinda sucks when you could have, lets say the 300 series, and it could have GT300, GT200 and G92b cores all mixed in. I know, this isn't an issue for those of use that are informed and aren't fanboys. If we want a 300 series card with a GT300 core, we know what to buy. But for the many out there that'll buy on impulse and poor word of mouth thinking they are getting new tech because of a new name, kinda shady.

Oh well, if I was to buy a card right now and it was a choice between a GTS250 and GTX9800+ it would of coarse come down to cost and performance. But I get the feeling these "newer" GTS250's will cost more then their twins for close to the same performance, but reviews will be the final word on that.


IMO NV is setting the stage for the rebranding of the 260's and 285's.
NV will surely be rebranding them to midrange/performance GT 300's.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,985 Posts
I wish they would change it and that GTX300 will be
10800GTX, 10800GTS, etc. I miss the old naming scheme, RIP.
 

·
Efficiencycionado
Joined
·
5,587 Posts
here you go
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...50,2172-4.html

the 4870 will be priced at $150 and thus being it's competitor for that pricerange, and it will certainly kick its ass.

nvidia is pathetic. and this article is a bit biased in the conclusion but just focus on the benchmarks.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top