C'moooon cheap and slow! That's right, cheap and slow baby, my 1280x1024 needs a new pair of shoes!
Another question would be why this is a GTX card instead of GTS? When over half the cards in their lineup are GTX it kind of cheapens the name.
This should be a GTS like the 450 was.
Seems like they should segregate that prefix based on the chip. IE
GF100/110 = GTX
GF104/114 = GTS
GF106/116 = GT
GF108/118? = G
Another question would be why this is a GTX card instead of GTS? When over half the cards in their lineup are GTX it kind of cheapens the name.
This should be a GTS like the 450 was.
Seems like they should segregate that prefix based on the chip. IE
GF100/110 = GTX
GF104/114 = GTS
GF106/116 = GT
GF108/118? = G
Thats actually pretty good.
AMD do the same thing.
ah but that's just far too logical for a GPU naming scheme
do they really need to do anything more than a number? Right now nVidia could do without the GTS/GTX monikers but it at least sets them apart
They didn't until they changed up the x8xx to no longer be the top GPU. Now it would be a nice clarifier for uninformed to understand the switch in naming from 58xx to 68xx/69xx
The problem is that the 6800s price/performance is more in line with a product between the traditional x7xx and x8xx range, so while it might have made more sense to label the 6800s as the 6700s and rebadge the 5700s as 6600s, AMD instead opted for the more marketable naming.
At the end of the day the numbering hierarchy is still self explanatory.
Another question would be why this is a GTX card instead of GTS? When over half the cards in their lineup are GTX it kind of cheapens the name.
This should be a GTS like the 450 was.
Seems like they should segregate that prefix based on the chip. IE
GF100/110 = GTX
GF104/114 = GTS
GF106/116 = GT
GF108/118? = G
yes, yes it is, and I think AMD's naming is generally more consistent since HD 2000 series, but my point was only for the uniformed consumer who could be confused between the two generations, that you COULD make case that a prefix/suffix for a particular GPU could be helpful.
Necessary - no, but not a horrible idea. In the 5 series x8xx meant best GPU, in the 6 series it does not.
Or just use the number...
Why do you need a prefix, a number, and a suffix, all of which change? You don't.
The HD at the start of AMD card names is constant and is part of the name, the number is then the product differentiator. Nice and easy within a generation.
You dont NEED it but its something that NV has been using for a long time and is associated with their brand. Nostalgic in a way like XT was for ATI. So if they are going to continue with then attaching them to certain chips makes sense. I never said they were needed.
Why do you need HD at the beginning of every AMD part? you don't. its the same thing.
My little breakdown was just a simple idea based on the fact that Nvidia does use prefixes and probalby will continue to. If they continue to use them then making them attached to a chip makes more sense was all i was saying. what amd does or doesn't do really has no bearing on it
Actually you do need HD at the start. Next up is the 7000 series. AMD has already done a 7000 series, now it's the HD7000 series. Then it's 8000, and they already did an 8000, now it's the HD8000.
NV has changed things about at various points and hasn't had any standard system which has an "association". They have had all sorts of letter configurations which have been used sometimes as a prefix, sometimes as a suffix. Sometimes they denote different models, sometimes they are just there for show.
The point wasn't "why do they have ANY suffixes and prefixes", it was "why do they need both suffixes AND prefixes both of which change and swap in and out when the model is more determined by the number anyway".
AMD has a static prefix (HD) which differentiates the current series from older ones. NV has random prefixes and suffixes which don't do much at all (except for the GTX460 SE suffix).
I'm going to go out on a limb and call this 550Ti introduction:
Price: $150
Performance: Just under GTX460-768 levels, based on slides presented above (really a replacement for the GTX460SE in that regard).
Verdict: Another Nvidia release priced too high for the market. After discouraging reviews, these will quickly pop up with the standard $30 Nvidia rebate to bring them down to $120, where they will do very well.
Actually you do need HD at the start. Next up is the 7000 series. AMD has already done a 7000 series, now it's the HD7000 series. Then it's 8000, and they already did an 8000, now it's the HD8000.
NV has changed things about at various points and hasn't had any standard system which has an "association". They have had all sorts of letter configurations which have been used sometimes as a prefix, sometimes as a suffix. Sometimes they denote different models, sometimes they are just there for show.
The point wasn't "why do they have ANY suffixes and prefixes", it was "why do they need both suffixes AND prefixes both of which change and swap in and out when the model is more determined by the number anyway".
AMD has a static prefix (HD) which differentiates the current series from older ones. NV has random prefixes and suffixes which don't do much at all (except for the GTX460 SE suffix).
A 550 means to me, a new generation of a 4 series part at the '50' level.
I have a bigger problem with a appearance of consistency in naming and perceived performance levels and then the performance levels being inconsistent.
3850-4850-5850 all upgrades in performance until 6850 same with 6870.
How does this effect the market ? Maybe in all cases, the potential buyer has to do a little home work.
At least you know where it fits in a generation, which is the real problem here.
8800Ultra
8800GTX
8800GTS
8800GTS
8800GTS
8800GT
8800GS
Thats apparently a single generation.
It gets worse when we move on.
8800Ultra
8800GTX
8800GTS-512mb -> 9800GTX -> 9800GTX+ -> GTS250
8800GTS-640mb
8800GTS-320mb
8800GT-512mb -> 9800GT (I don't even know if this is 55nm or 65nm, apparently there are 2 versions)
8800GS-768mb/384mb -> 9600GS or 9600GSO I don't even know. There were 2 versions of the GSO with different SP numbers.
Nice and orderly huh. Yes, no confusion at all.
I can't even put them in order of performance for you within each generation. without carefully comparing clocks and SPs and memory and memory buses.
I can tell you the second you ask that a 6850 is faster than a 6670 and slower than a 6870.
Thats a prolific account, of the most popular generation of video cards ever made