GT200 now to be called "GeForce GTX 200 Series"

[Mobious]

Apparently they're dropping the 9900-series name and going with a brand new naming scheme, and I personally hate it already...

The 9900GTX will now be called the "GeForce GTX 280", and the 9900GTS will now be called the "GeForce GTX 260". Kinda stupid if you ask me :screwy:

Source: http://vr-zone.com/articles/GT200_is_GeForce_GTX_200_Series/5778.html,
http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=276040

-Mobious-

[ratbuddy]

Apparently they're dropping the 9900-series name and going with a brand new naming scheme, and I personally hate it already...

The 9900GTX will now be called the "GeForce GTX 280", and the 9900GTS will now be called the "GeForce GTX 260". Kinda stupid if you ask me :screwy:

Source: http://vr-zone.com/articles/GT200_is_GeForce_GTX_200_Series/5778.html,
http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=276040

-Mobious-

They talk out of one side of their mouths about simplifying the naming scheme like you mention, but lo and behold, they are releasing the 9800GT... Same name, with 2 different cores, one 65nm and the other 55nm.. Ugh.

[Shiggity]

I don't know why every card doesn't have the core in the description like the 8800GTS 512 (g92) is advertised.

Nvidia is almost to the point where they should be sued for false advertising or it needs to be standardized in some way. Put what core it has, what the core / shader / mem are clocked at, how much memory it has, what type of memory. That should be MANDATORY in every single description and on every box. Numbers don't lie, every single new core / memory has a higher number, not that hard to figure out which is better.

The consumer is only inept at choosing graphics cards because thats the way Nvidia wants it to be. People are NOT that stupid.

At least their new product sku's have a "2" in front to designate the GT200 core I guess.

Intel has 8 million names for their chips, but at least you know what is what.

@Ratbuddy - lol just saw that, that is just rediculous

[Hardin]

And I was so hoping for them to name it the x800 series.

[reclaimer122]

I think I like it! :beer: Seems simplified to me, but so did the current naming scheme. I don't see what's so hard about it. 8-/9- denotes series, 8x00-/9x00- denotes placement in the series, and the GT/GTS/etc endings specify the card's performance relative to other cards in the placement. EX: 8800GTX clearly is better than an 8800GT, but anybody about to spend $150-200 on a video card should be smart enough to do their homework before buying a 640MB 8800GTS over a 512MB "because the number is higher." Same with somebody going from say an 8800GTX to a 9600GT. The number is higher, so it must be better, right? The average person should take some initiative and know what they're buying, not expect to be handed everything.

Same goes for the 9800GTX argument. Take a look: the 8800GTX/Ultra was meant to be the TOP of the 8-series. The 9800GTX is only meant to be second-best (not including GX2's here) for the 9-series. Giving the SECOND-best card in the 9-series the same performance as the BEST of the 8-series is only natural.

Let me demonstrate. Here, I've given the major cards of each series (no 9800GX2 for simplicity's sake) a number of 1-6 in performance. Keep in mind that before the 9-series, 5 was the best performance available.

8-series:
8800GTX/GTS 512 - 5
8800GTS 320/640 - 4
8800GT - 3
8600GT - 2
8400GS - 1

9-series:
GTX 280 (9900GTX) - 6
9800GTX - 5
9600GT - 4
9600GSO - 3
9400GS - 2

Yeah, sure the 9800GTX didn't perform as well as I or anybody else expected (until it was too late :D), but for a lot of 8800GTS owners it was a new card for free with EVGA, usually with just slightly better performance.

[MadMan007]

Silly how they're using the GTX moniker for both cards. It is completely superfluous using GTX like that, they might as well drop that and just use numbers like AMD. Or at least put hte letters after the numbers, this way is bass-ackwards and imo is just there to continue some level of confusion...'It's a GTX'

[Brolloks]

Silly how they're using the GTX moniker for both cards. It is completely superfluous using GTX like that, they might as well drop that and just use numbers like AMD. Or at least put hte letters after the numbers, this way is bass-ackwards and imo is just there to continue some level of confusion...'It's a GTX'


LOL...fully agree, the GTX280 sounds like a kids racing car.

[necrokiller]

The average person should take some initiative and know what they're buying, not expect to be handed everything.

The average person is not called an average person once they do all this homework. There are TONS of options. Geforce alone has atleast 6 cards every generation from low end to high end...top it off with confusing naming schemes, then add ALL the manufacturers....and then further several overclocked versions..and this is just nvidia..and throw ATI in it as well. Its too complicated of a decision for an 'average person'. The best they can do is have a decent naming scheme.

Same goes for the 9800GTX argument. Take a look: the 8800GTX/Ultra was meant to be the TOP of the 8-series. The 9800GTX is only meant to be second-best (not including GX2's here) for the 9-series. Giving the SECOND-best card in the 9-series the same performance as the BEST of the 8-series is only natural.

What? are you saying 9800GTX = 8800 Ultra? :confused:

Let me demonstrate. Here, I've given the major cards of each series (no 9800GX2 for simplicity's sake) a number of 1-6 in performance. Keep in mind that before the 9-series, 5 was the best performance available.

8-series:
8800GTX/GTS 512 - 5
8800GTS 320/640 - 4
8800GT - 3
8600GT - 2
8400GS - 1

9-series:
GTX 280 (9900GTX) - 6
9800GTX - 5
9600GT - 4
9600GSO - 3
9400GS - 2

For 8-series:
3 and 4 MUST be switched there. 8800GT > GTS 320mb/640mb..if not, then according to the scheme, 8800GT would equal 9600GT. Which is wrong again. Even for the sake of argument, you cannot rule out the faster 8-series card there is, the Ultra that is.

[Niku-Sama]

i dont see how this is any more or less stupid than any thing they have done with names before.

Geforce,2 ,3 ,4 ,FX/5xxx ,6xxx ,7xxx ,8xxx ,9xxx and now 2xx and probally 3xx after that
i mean really going from a single digit to 4 and now to 3 to name them, i fail to see why its dumb

[Badbonji]

Also you contradict yourself : "Giving the SECOND-best card in the 9-series the same performance as the BEST of the 8-series is only natural."

Whereas You put the best of the 8 series one lower score than the 9800gtx (gts 512 + gtx). Shouldnt the 8800gts 512mb and the 9800gtx be the same score? Sure, there might be a difference of 2fps in a game, but I wouldn't call that a real improvement...

[monstert]

So people cant handle 4 digits..so NV think awww ok we'll do 3?! I think Nv are taking the p1ss out of the noob market LOL. I find it amusing but thats just because i'm educated on how to choose a future card just from using these forums. I guess i'm a jerk :D
Even Tiger Direct makes it simple with their Youtube Vid reviews!

[Badbonji]

I just hope these cards give a huge performance boost rather than like the 9800gtx refresh that was mininmal. Only time + benchmarks will tell, i guess...

[nightelph]

What's in a name? I know, they're both tagged 'GTX", which is weird, but maybe they're going to release a GTS version.

Performance is key here, I personally want to spank Crysis at 1920x1200.

[Deanzo]

I could care less what they call it, I worry about have fast it will go, and what will it cost me. In that order.


And as for the average joe thing, out side of guys like you. Most dont know what a QX9650 or a E2160 is, and would have no idea which is better.
They take home what ever the store sells them in their price range, 20 years in Retail tells me this is true.

[Maleko]

well, they have to change the name at some point...would look more silly having cards like the 10 series....10000....(dont nobody say it should be 1000....as thats going down ;) )makes some sense tbh.

[ratbuddy]

Heh just had a stupid idea, what if they did it like carmakers.. "Yeah, it's an '08 GTX, only seen 1.1v core, it was owned by a little old lady who played minesweeper all day"

Just call the card GTX/GTS/GT/GS/GSO/whatever, and the year it was released.. They'd never run out of names, and a simple chart would be good enough to show which were better, like a 2005 GTX vs a 2009 GT, etc..

[Maleko]

Heh just had a stupid idea, what if they did it like carmakers.. "Yeah, it's an '08 GTX, only seen 1.1v core, it was owned by a little old lady who played minesweeper all day"

Just call the card GTX/GTS/GT/GS/GSO/whatever, and the year it was released.. They'd never run out of names, and a simple chart would be good enough to show which were better, like a 2005 GTX vs a 2009 GT, etc..


would make the most sense, but this is manufactures where talkign about :P they dont think like that, they have to come up with some random meaningless name to just "look" good.

[nightelph]

Heh just had a stupid idea, what if they did it like carmakers.. "Yeah, it's an '08 GTX, only seen 1.1v core, it was owned by a little old lady who played minesweeper all day"

LOL. Gosh I can't wait for some benchies.

[thideras]

LOL. Gosh I can't wait for some benchies.For minesweeper? I heard it can render 1 BILLION mines per SECOND. :eek:

[necrokiller]

For minesweeper? I heard it can render 1 BILLION mines per SECOND. :eek:

Hahahaha

Just out of curiosity though, what is everyone expecting of the 9900GTX? I mean, just to predict, what kind of results would satisfy you to buy it at such a high price? (it cant be lower than 9800GTX) Crysis 60fps Very High DX10 @ 1080p? Is it too much to ask? Coz besides Crysis, and the upcoming Far Cry 2, I don't think there are any games that the current cards cant handle at high resolutions.

[thideras]

Hahahaha

Just out of curiosity though, what is everyone expecting of the 9900GTX? I mean, just to predict, what kind of results would satisfy you to buy it at such a high price? (it cant be lower than 9800GTX) Crysis 60fps Very High DX10 @ 1080p? Is it too much to ask? Coz besides Crysis, and the upcoming Far Cry 2, I don't think there are any games that the current cards cant handle at high resolutions.Well, if it is dual core or dual die, it would be worth it :)

[nightelph]

..can render 1 BILLION mines per SECOND. :eek:

ZOMG!!! Sold.

Seriously, though. Crysis maxed at 1080... would be nice, very nice, but I wouldn't hold my breath. And FarCry2's spec requirements weren't supposed to be as sharp as crysis. Different engine, too.

[keninishna]

I don't trust nvidia anymore I swear they would rather trick customers and get money rather than actually give them what they pay for. I don't care if a card is 600$ as long as its near twice as good as the average 300$ card. Watch the gt200 be a fixed up gx2. They say the gx2 has 1 gb ram and 512 bit bus.

[thideras]

They say the gx2 has 1 gb ram and 512 bit bus.That isn't nVidia's fault, that is the company who sells them.

[keninishna]

That isn't nVidia's fault, that is the company who sells them.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce9.html
Its nvidia's marketing fault they build some good stuff but they scheme too much imo

[thideras]

http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce9.html
Its nvidia's marketing fault they build some good stuff but they scheme too much imoYou are suggesting that all the companies that resell it are completely oblivious to that fact?

Technically, they are correct, it does have 1gb total memory and 512bit width total. I still agree though that it should not be advertised as such ;)

[nightelph]

...scheme too much
??
Theres four chipsets listed there, for different market segments. How is that scheming?

[keninishna]

They should state its 2 cards and list the specs of one card not mix and match. I mean if they are gonna double the memory together and call it 1 gig why don't they double the clockrates together and say its 1200 mhz core, 3000 shader and 2000 memory?

Then they make the g92 chipset which was a smart move, cheap plus performance but they name it in the same series with the same name or give it a name that denotes the card is slower than the other.

Sorry I'm bitching too much its business that's the greatness of America is you can scheme. Plus if you do your homework its obvious what card is better than another.

[ratbuddy]

ZOMG!!! Sold.

Seriously, though. Crysis maxed at 1080... would be nice, very nice, but I wouldn't hold my breath. And FarCry2's spec requirements weren't supposed to be as sharp as crysis. Different engine, too.

Good luck. At 1080p, with a 3.6ghz quad, I got 43.8 FPS average on the Crysis GPU benchmark in DX9 high with 0xAA. 4xAA dropped the average down to 23.6. To even hit 60 FPS @ 1080p with no AA in DX9 on high, you'd need ~40% more power. For DX10 with AA enabled? Probably twice the power and memory of the current GX2. Possible with a dual GT200 card, but I'm not holding my breath :)

[necrokiller]

^Understood. That Crysis is one bitch of a game when it comes to GPU + CPU power. But what are you trying to say? Is it nvidia's fault that they are not making cards good enough to run it at that settings or is it Crytek's fault that they released a game ahead of its time? Whatever the case may be, putting out new cards at this speed is stupid. I would rather want them to release a card year later which would atleast play games like Crysis maxed out, to justify the cards ability...rather than have the life of my current card cut out to 3-4months. This way atleast you use your card longer and then it makes sense that you pay so much for it.

[ratbuddy]

^Understood. That Crysis is one bitch of a game when it comes to GPU + CPU power. But what are you trying to say? Is it nvidia's fault that they are not making cards good enough to run it at that settings or is it Crytek's fault that they released a game ahead of its time? Whatever the case may be, putting out new cards at this speed is stupid. I would rather want them to release a card year later which would atleast play games like Crysis maxed out, to justify the cards ability...rather than have the life of my current card cut out to 3-4months. This way atleast you use your card longer and then it makes sense that you pay so much for it.

Crytek did the same thing with Far Cry. They included some kind of 'Ultra High' setting that no computer at the time could run with decent framerates. I think it's a great bit of marketing and ensuring their game will keep selling for years. Once the type of card that can max Crysis comes below $200 and people start putting them in mainstream machines, of course they are going to buy the game just to 'show it who's boss' so to speak.. Noone says you HAVE to use high settings anyway :p

[necrokiller]

Crytek did the same thing with Far Cry. They included some kind of 'Ultra High' setting that no computer at the time could run with decent framerates. I think it's a great bit of marketing and ensuring their game will keep selling for years. Once the type of card that can max Crysis comes below $200 and people start putting them in mainstream machines, of course they are going to buy the game just to 'show it who's boss' so to speak..

That is so stupid in my opinion. People are falling right into their traps. No wonder why every developer is favoring console market.
Noone says you HAVE to use high settings anyway :p
Hahaha you're telling me Crysis maxed out wasnt in your mind when you bought 9800GX2? I bet it was the first game you benchmarked. :P

[ratbuddy]

That is so stupid in my opinion. People are falling right into their traps. No wonder why every developer is favoring console market. Atleast the game can be played the way its meant to be played. I would never play Crysis years down the road when a card cheap enough to play it maxed out comes JUST to show people that I can do it.


Hahaha you're telling me Crysis maxed out wasnt in your mind when you bought 9800GX2? I bet it was the first game you benchmarked. :P

I played a few rounds of TF2 first, but yeah I did buy Crysis just to see how it ran. I did enjoy Far Cry, so I thought I might like Crysis as well. So far, I'm still trying to work my way through a huge backlog of games. I'm just getting through COD4 at the moment, and there's another few I need to play before I fire up Crysis.

I'm not saying people will play Crysis in a few years to show off to other people, they're going to play it because their systems can easily handle it maxed, and it's still going to look good..

[necrokiller]

Youre playing all those games just now? Cool..have fun! You have a tight system for them :D

If the 900GTX or whatever they plan to call it, is atleast TWICE as good as 9800GTX..i might sell my 8800GT SLI for it. Just might.

[reclaimer122]

The average person is not called an average person once they do all this homework. There are TONS of options. Geforce alone has atleast 6 cards every generation from low end to high end...top it off with confusing naming schemes, then add ALL the manufacturers....and then further several overclocked versions..and this is just nvidia..and throw ATI in it as well. Its too complicated of a decision for an 'average person'. The best they can do is have a decent naming scheme.
And as for the average joe thing, out side of guys like you. Most dont know what a QX9650 or a E2160 is, and would have no idea which is better.
They take home what ever the store sells them in their price range, 20 years in Retail tells me this is true.
Yes, you're both right. I just think it's a little ridiculous that even somebody who knows nothing about computers wouldn't take ten minutes to compare an 8400 to a 7900 online before blowing $1500. Yet it happens anyway. But you're right here, the average person wouldn't think about it.

What? are you saying 9800GTX = 8800 Ultra? :confused:
Close enough to consider them in the same "power class."


For 8-series:
3 and 4 MUST be switched there. 8800GT > GTS 320mb/640mb..if not, then according to the scheme, 8800GT would equal 9600GT. Which is wrong again. Even for the sake of argument, you cannot rule out the faster 8-series card there is, the Ultra that is.
I was making quick ball-park estimates and instead of putting the GTS's and GT's together just separated them. And Like I said above, the 8800 Ultra is close enough in performance to the 8800GTX/GTS/9800GTX that I just grouped them together for simplicity. In reality the Ultra would perform slightly better at common resolutions, but once you go higher then the Ultra would come out on top, yes.

Also you contradict yourself : "Giving the SECOND-best card in the 9-series the same performance as the BEST of the 8-series is only natural."

Whereas You put the best of the 8 series one lower score than the 9800gtx (gts 512 + gtx). Shouldnt the 8800gts 512mb and the 9800gtx be the same score? Sure, there might be a difference of 2fps in a game, but I wouldn't call that a real improvement...
They do have the same score. :confused: I gave them both 5's. The 9900 got the 6. :beer:

[MadMan007]

Apparently NV's idea of 'simplifying the product lineup' is using 3 digits instead of 4 :rolleyes: Really meaningful when the last digit was always a 0! Maybe they'll come out with fewer variations but given that many of the varitations are just different ways to use the same chip I'm not sure that will happen.

[MattODoom]

Wow... didn't the 9 series just come out.. why are they flying through so many name generations.

[thideras]

Wow... didn't the 9 series just come out.. why are they flying through so many name generations.Probably not selling as good and ATI might have something out that can compete :p

[Hardin]

Wow... didn't the 9 series just come out.. why are they flying through so many name generations.

They're making up for the 2 years between the 8xxx series and now and it's about time.

[reclaimer122]

Probably not selling as good and ATI might have something out that can compete :p

We can only hope! :beer: I would honestly love to see ATI completely smash Nvidia in terms of performance or even just price/performance. Looks like they may even be able to do both with that recent graph. Then we'd get some real competition and AMD would get their much needed revenue.

[necrokiller]

We can only hope! :beer: I would honestly love to see ATI completely smash Nvidia in terms of performance or even just price/performance. Looks like they may even be able to do both with that recent graph. Then we'd get some real competition and AMD would get their much needed revenue.

I think HD 3800 can smash Nvidia 8800 series any day...but they need better drivers more than new GPU horsepower.

[ratbuddy]

I think HD 3800 can smash Nvidia 8800 series any day...but they need better drivers more than new GPU horsepower.

If you used it as a bludgeon, yeah, it could probably smash an 8800 series card. Performancewise, not a chance ;)

[Mr.Guvernment]

always wondered, wtf does things like GTX, GT, GTS, XT, mean?

Great Trashing Xray?

Grand Tormenting Sh** ?

[thideras]

always wondered, wtf does things like GTX, GT, GTS, XT, mean?

Great Trashing Xray?

Grand Tormenting Sh** ?I don't think it stands for anything. Cars have it too...

[Ninth]

I agree with thideras and whoever said earlier about standardization.

8800GTS. Wut does that tell me. I'd much rather have Manufacturer/clocks/stream procs/interface/max res. It would be a bitch of a name, but it would sure as hell say a lot more than a series of numbers and useless letters.

(Granted this is in my dream world where people want no ease whatsoever in discussing GPU's...)

Or they could at least start documenting it like programmers have to.

8800 GT being , arbitrarily Nvidia 2.0.6, the 8800GTS being the Nvidia 2.1.3, ect. Long and short, we need a standard that makes -sense-.

[reclaimer122]

In order for there to be a "standard" then wouldn't ATI and nVidia need to meet up to discuss a naming scheme? Otherwise the idea of a "standard" is useless anyway.

[Shiggity]

I agree with thideras and whoever said earlier about standardization.

:D

Guys, GPU specs are already standardized, yet none of the important specs are included in any of the naming schemes by either company. I could care less what they name their stupid cards.

On every box / internet retailer you should be seeing CORE SPEED / SHADER SPEED / MEMORY SPEED, TYPE, SIZE / CORE with a comparison chart of other cards next to it. So you can easily cross reference the important specs.

People think the 9600gt is better than an 8800GT because omg it has a 9 instead of an 8 or that the 8800GTS 640MB is better than the 8800GTS 512. If you saw on the box that the 8800GTS 512 had a newer core and had a higher core / shader / memory speed it would be painfully obvious.

Nvidia doesn't even have an easily accessible table that cleanly lays out all their cards with all the important specs next to each other that I know of. That alone would be very helpful. It would also be nice if they had a CPU minimum for cards. I'm sure there are people out there who buy 300-500$ gpus and stick them in rigs with horribly old CPU's and they wonder why the performance sucks.