New Nvidia Names
- Thread starter PeterStoba
- Start date
SwaleSmith
New member
this is getting silly now....
mayhem
New member
can some one not sue there asses under the new law that has been renamed 5 times under the original law that protects us consumers from these silly gits ...
Im admitted starting get annoyed with Nvidia and will consider my next GPU to be a ATI since i know what the hell ill be buying. (trust me that is not some thing i ever thought i would consider my self saying)
Im admitted starting get annoyed with Nvidia and will consider my next GPU to be a ATI since i know what the hell ill be buying. (trust me that is not some thing i ever thought i would consider my self saying)
Youngie1337
New member
I'll have a McGTX large please
arungoyal1666
New member
haven't they got got nay work except renaming their products
Rastalovich
New member
U look at the 3 digits, u know the relative performance of the cards ur gonna get. Surely looking at a 130/140/whatever, ur gonna know how well it compares to a 275 ? Is that too simplistic ?
Would we prefer the naming convention to have gone Geforce 10800 GTX, with the G300 being Geforce 11800 GTX ?
ATI went from 9000 series to 1000 series, 2000 series, whilst releases of new graphic cards meant a whole lot more than they do now. Why didn't they go 10000/11000/12000 ? Not a tear was shed.
As opposed to big increases in performances, we now get small relative %ages. An nVidia 8800/9800 - which as the corporation has adopted the new naming moving forward, just as ATI did previously, they still represent a valuable purchase in terms of performance.
If the cards are still viable and being sold, what is the issue with calling them a lesser value in relation to the existing naming convention, with numbers that represent the performance u can expect ? Or do we stick with 8800 so the lay person has no idea, on the face of it, how it compares to a 300 ?
Let's not hug out TheInquirer shortcuts too much please.
Would we prefer the naming convention to have gone Geforce 10800 GTX, with the G300 being Geforce 11800 GTX ?
ATI went from 9000 series to 1000 series, 2000 series, whilst releases of new graphic cards meant a whole lot more than they do now. Why didn't they go 10000/11000/12000 ? Not a tear was shed.
As opposed to big increases in performances, we now get small relative %ages. An nVidia 8800/9800 - which as the corporation has adopted the new naming moving forward, just as ATI did previously, they still represent a valuable purchase in terms of performance.
If the cards are still viable and being sold, what is the issue with calling them a lesser value in relation to the existing naming convention, with numbers that represent the performance u can expect ? Or do we stick with 8800 so the lay person has no idea, on the face of it, how it compares to a 300 ?
Let's not hug out TheInquirer shortcuts too much please.
Ducky Spud
New member
These just seem pointless changes! Dropping the GTX of the current GTX200's... why? Though changing the lower end cards to a similar format sort of makes sense, normally bigger numbers = better so changing the 8800 into a 130 or whatever makes it easier for the general public to know where it stands in the line up.
This renaming isnt as bad as before e.g. the 9800GTX into a GTX250 despite not having a GTX200 core lol.
This renaming isnt as bad as before e.g. the 9800GTX into a GTX250 despite not having a GTX200 core lol.
Everyone says it is a mess, but it is necessary. There are still people buying the 9500GT 1GB over the 8800GTS 512MB because it has more memory and it has a "9" instead of an "8" and everyone knows that 9 > 8...
The thing is you never add digits to a naming scheme, and the old naming scheme was depleted... that's what happens when you get to 9xxx. Going to 10xxx is not an option.
The same thing will happen with ATI, when they get the HD9850, HD9870, HD9890. You think they'll switch to HD10850, HD10870 and HD10890? no, because the first number will make people crazy, and they won't buy the new series because it is "slower" then the HD2400...
Anyway, what happens now is not a "NEW" renaming, it's the same renaming we've been taking about for a year now... and I see every time someone posts about it people think it's new... this would make the 348729865438th (aprox.) time nVidia renamed it's G92b based cards.
The thing is you never add digits to a naming scheme, and the old naming scheme was depleted... that's what happens when you get to 9xxx. Going to 10xxx is not an option.
The same thing will happen with ATI, when they get the HD9850, HD9870, HD9890. You think they'll switch to HD10850, HD10870 and HD10890? no, because the first number will make people crazy, and they won't buy the new series because it is "slower" then the HD2400...
Anyway, what happens now is not a "NEW" renaming, it's the same renaming we've been taking about for a year now... and I see every time someone posts about it people think it's new... this would make the 348729865438th (aprox.) time nVidia renamed it's G92b based cards.
Similar threads
